Relationship between the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties and the crime of injury to police officers who interfered with the performance of official duties

The point of obstruction of performance of official duties and the point of injury to police officers who interfered with the performance of official duties are related to ordinary concurrences.

Articles 40, 136, and 257 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Daejeon District Court of the first instance (73 Gohap12, 167), Daejeon District Court of the District Court (73 Gohap12, 167)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years.

The seventy days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the above sentence.

The excessive two (No. 20) confiscated shall be forfeited from the accused.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel is as follows: First, the defendant did not commit the robbery in the indictment of this case; however, the court below found him guilty of the robbery in the above indictment; thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment; second, the judgment of the court below is too unreasonable because the amount of the sentence imposed by the defendant is too unreasonable.

First, the first ground for appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel is examined comprehensively in light of the records and evidence duly adopted by the court below. The statement made by the witness 1 in this court, the witness 2 in this court, and the statement fit for the injury by robbery at the time of the original inquiry by the witness 2 in this court, the statement made by the doctor 1 in this court, and the statement made by the doctor 1 in the original inquiry by the witness 2 in this court, and the statement made appropriate for the injury by robbery at the time of the original inquiry by the doctor 4 in this medical certificate as to non-indicted 3 in this case, the statement made appropriate for the injury by the Dong 4 in this case, and the statement made by the doctor 3 in the original inquiry by the doctor 4 in this case, and the statement made by the court below as to non-indicted 2 in this case's statement and the statement made by the prosecutor 3 in this case can not be seen as being in violation of the provisions of the Criminal Act, and there is no error in the judgment below's decision that the defendant's punishment of punishment is applied to this case.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio and the members are decided again.

(Criminal Facts and Summary of Evidence)

The gist of the criminal facts of the defendant who is admitted as a member of the party and the evidence thereof is that the "long-term six months" in the 10th sentence from the 3th sentence to the 10th six months of the judgment of the court below during the original trial, and the "long-term six months" in the 5th sentence from the 9th order to the 5th end of the 5th order, is inserted into the "short meat point", and the "long-term meat point" is added in the judgment of the above grounds for appeal, as stated in each corresponding case of the judgment of the court below, except for this case, and all of these evidences are added in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act provides that each thief shall be punished at the rate of punishment; Article 329 of the same Act provides that each thief shall be punished; Article 337 of the same Act provides that each thief shall be punished; Article 331 (2) and (1) of the same Act provides that each special thief shall be punished; Article 257 (1) of the same Act provides that thief shall be punished; Article 136 (1) of the same Act provides that thief shall be punished; Article 330 of the same Act provides that 2 of the same Act provides that thief shall be punished; Article 40 and 50 of the same Act provides that thief shall be punished; Article 7 of the same Act provides that thief shall be limited to thief's imprisonment; Article 37 of the same Act provides that thief's imprisonment shall be limited to stief's imprisonment; Article 50 of the same Act provides that 2 of the same Act shall be subject to 3.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judge Regular (Presiding Judge) Lee Jin-jin-gu