2012Gohap173 Injury by special obstruction of performance of official duties, damage to public goods, theft

Kim 00

Kim Jong-k (Lawsuits) and Park Jong-dae (Trial)

Attorney Choi So-gu (Law Firm Gyeong-gu)

June 14, 2012

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Criminal facts

1. Larceny;

On April 17, 2012: around 00, the Defendant entered into the 00 square meters of 00 operation of the victim, which was located in Daejeon Dong-dong 95 - 10, Daejeon-dong 95 - 10, and stolen 17 of the equipment of the hospital, such as sporess, sporess, sporess, sporess, sporess, and sporess in the market value owned by the victim, which was located in the corridor of the five-story hospitalization room.

2. Damage to public goods;

At around 21:40 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) was divers (26cm in length) who was driven by 100 the Daejeon East-dong Police Station, Daejeon-dong Police Station, which was sent to the site after receiving a theft report, on the front side of the “Woo-dong Police Station”, and was able to carry out a divers patrol vehicle, which was driven by 26cm to the end; and (b) continuously carried out a stone of the size of the floor of the divers in the fluor in the fluor, a public object, and damaged the amount of 303,800 won for repair, such as the divers exchange of fluor and the repair of the fluor.

3. Injury resulting from special obstruction of performance of official duties.

At around 21:40 on the same day, the Defendant recommended the Defendant to return home on the front side of the Daejeon East East-gu Police Station, the Daejeon East-gu Seoul Metropolitan Police Station, the discharge area, and the police officer Kim Dong-do, to attract the bicycles he was on board, and each item (the length of 156cm, the width of 5cm, and the size of 5cm) which was dangerous for the Defendant to have been loaded on the Defendant’s own bicycle was carried out, and each item was added to the Defendant’s back of the victim’s above 100 (the victim’s age of 43), and each item was added to the Defendant, and the victim continued to leave the Defendant’s arms, and each part was committed one time by the victim’s head, each of which was the victim’s head.

The Defendant assaulted the victim, who is a police officer, with dangerous objects, and obstructed the legitimate performance of duties in relation to the conduct of on-site patrols, and accordingly, the Defendant inflicted bodily injury on the two sides, the right side, and the right side, which require treatment for about two weeks.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in court;

1. Each legal statement made by the witness 00 and Kim Jong-dae;

1. Kim* * The written statements

1. A medical certificate;

1. A written estimate of general repair expenses (written request);

1. Kim Jong-ran, on-site, damaged photographs, etc.;

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of criminal facts;

Article 329 (Larceny, Selection of Imprisonment) of the Criminal Act, and Article 141 (1) of the Criminal Act.

In addition, Articles 144(2) (main sentence), 144(1), and 136(1) of the Criminal Act (Bodily Injury resulting from Special obstruction of Performance of Official Duties)

of this section)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act.

Punishment for harming Aggravated Punishment (within the scope of the sum of the long-term punishments of the above crimes)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing)

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. As to the assertion that he did not perform the act of paragraphs 2 and 3 among the facts constituting the crime of this case

The defendant and his defense counsel hold that the patrol vehicle, as stated in the facts of the crime of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the judgment of the defendant, which is a public object, did not inflict any injury on police officers by throwing away from the patrol vehicle, which is a public object.

In full view of the following facts: (a) when the witness stand out after receiving a theft report from the police investigation to the present court, the Defendant was in possession of divers and recommended him to return home; (b) however, he consistently stated that divers and divers were faced with divers to the direction of divers; (c) the divers and divers were faced with divers while returning home; (d) the witness Kim Jong-soo also made a statement corresponding thereto; and (c) the Defendant committed any act identical to the crime No. 2 and No. 3; and (c) the Defendant was found to have committed any act identical to the crime No. 2 and No. 3.

2. As to the mentally ill-incompetent

The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical disability due to a fluence that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, and according to the aforementioned evidence, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant had drinking a certain degree of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, and in light of the various circumstances, such as the background, means and method of the instant crime, the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the Defendant was in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, and thus, the above assertion is rejected.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment;

From June to June 21, 190

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

(a) Larceny;

【Determination of Type】

thief crime;

【Determination of the Place of Recommendation】

Basic Area

[The scope of the recommended sentence]

From June to June (before conciliation according to the applicable sentences of law)

【General Adopteds】

- Mitigation elements: where considerable damage has been recovered;

(b) Damage to public goods;

【Determination of Type】

Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties. Invalidity and Destruction of Public Goods

【Determination of the Place of Recommendation】

Basic Area

[The scope of the recommended sentence]

From June to June (before conciliation according to the applicable sentences of law)

(c) Injury resulting from special obstruction of performance;

【Determination of Type】

Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties; Death or injury caused by special obstruction of public duties;

【Determination of the Place of Recommendation】

Basic Area

[The scope of the recommended sentence]

From 2 years to 4 years (before conciliation according to applicable sentences in law)

D. Handling of multiple offenses

【Criteria for Disposal】

The crime of damaging public goods shall be limited to the maximum (4 years) of the serious injury resulting from special obstruction of performance of official duties.

A person who commits a crime by adding up 1/2/2/3 of the upper limit of the sentence scope and 1/3 (6 months) of the upper limit of the sentence scope of larceny.

the above shall be fixed

[The scope of the recommended sentence]

From 2 years to 5 years (before conciliation according to the applicable sentences of law)

3. Determination of sentence;

【Unfavorable Circumstances】

○ The police officer asked the Defendant to return home, but did so with the Raber without any special reason.

the purpose of this Act is to maintain the legal order of ○ and to impair the public peace by destroying patrol vehicles and causing injuries to police officers performing official duties.

○ An offense of obstruction of performance of official duties has been committed even though there was a history of punishment.

【Beneficial Conditions】

○ The value of the stolen goods is minor and all damaged goods are recovered.

Judge Lee Jong-soo

Judges Jin Jinio

Judges Senior Jin-jin