20 Highest 3202 Special Obstruction of Performance of Duties, Damage to Public Goods, Road Traffic Act

Anti-driving (driving)

A, 1976 Life, South and North, Construction

Residence

Reference domicile

Before the filing of a lawsuit, the filing of a lawsuit, or the filing of a lawsuit

Attorney Jeon Soo-tae (Korean)

April 14, 2021

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

1. Violation of the Road Traffic Act;

On August 1, 2017, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1,500,00 from the Ulsan District Court to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

Nevertheless, at around 23:10 on April 1, 2020, the Defendant driven a feld car in the 3km section of approximately 0.122% of blood alcohol concentration at around 0.122% in the direction of the Evalescent hospital located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

2. Special obstruction of performance of official duties or damage to public goods;

On April 1, 2020, at around 23:17, the Defendant reported that there was a vehicle suspected of driving in drinking alcohol, such as a vehicle in front of the Evalescent Hospital located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, and a central line, and that there was a vehicle suspected of driving in drinking alcohol, and the G, etc., who was assigned to the Banb Police Station in Ulsan-gu, the police box in charge of the situation where G, etc. was called the Defendant’s feld car during the signal waiting at one-lane of the above three-distance distance discovered the Defendant’s feld car, which was demanded several times to get the driver’s seat window from the above police officer for drinking

However, in order to avoid the alcohol level, the Defendant: (a) while the police officer of the Ulsan Central Police Station, who was called up with the above 112 report, was obstructed the Defendant’s escape route from the Defendant’s escape route on the side of the Defendant’s propelled vehicle; (b) however, the Defendant took the dangerous object of the 112 patrol while driving the propelled vehicle on two occasions in the front of the 112 patrol vehicle.

As a result, the Defendant, carrying a dangerous object, and assaulted H and police officer I, thereby hindering police officers from performing their legitimate duties in regard to the handling of 112 Report Cases and the crackdown on drinking driving, and damaged the patrol vehicle, which is a public object, to have a total amount of KRW 462,00,000, in terms of pentum plates and painting, thereby impairing its utility.

Summary of Evidence

(Omission)

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 148-2(1) and 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 17371 of Jun. 9, 2020), Articles 144(1) and 136(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 17371 of Jun. 9, 202), Article 141(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 17371 of Jun. 9, 202)

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the crime of special obstruction of the performance of official duties and the crime of damaging public Articles, and the punishment for the crime of special obstruction of the performance of official duties against the grave ○○ iron iron)

1. Selection of punishment;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [limited to concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed by a special obstruction of performance of official duties heavier than punishment, but the lowest sentence shall be the punishment prescribed by a violation of the Road Traffic Act];

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

In addition, the drinking driving of this case was conducted again under the influence of alcohol even though there was a history of punishment for drinking driving. In addition, while driving of this case, while driving under the influence of alcohol, the driver left the scene without taking any measures to damage the above drinking vehicle after driving a vehicle behind the vehicle parked, and driving on the road or getting a center separation facility. Accordingly, the crimes such as driving of the defendant's vehicle in order to avoid the measurement of a defect in drinking alcohol by driving the vehicle after receiving a report from the police, are very poor in quality of crime, such as the distance of the drinking driving in this case, the distance of the previous driving vehicle, the time interval with the previous driving force, the frequency of punishment for drinking driving, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc., the defendant's previous conviction, such as the record of the suspended sentence of imprisonment due to obstruction of performance of duties and the degree of damage to public goods, the defendant's age, character and behavior, the defendant's age, character and environment, relation to the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc.

Judges Kim Jong-chul