beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, the Defendant, on June 25, 2015, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine, that his body went to the AP pharmacy and did not refuse to comply with the demand for eviction (the refusal of eviction). On August 20, 2015, the Defendant did not exercise his power by taking advantage of his intention, such as taking a bath or taking a part in the H convenience store on August 20, 2015 (the point of interference with business). On June 15, 2016, the Defendant was only contacted with the police officer’s inside, and did not recognize the police officer, and thus did not have any intention to interfere with the performance of official duties (the point of interference with the performance of official duties). Accordingly, the lower court convicting the Defendant of the facts charged, by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.
B. Sentencing
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, such as the defendant's statement at the court below, the police statement at D, P's statement, and the list of reported cases at 112, the fact that the defendant did not comply with the request for eviction by the victim D can be acknowledged.
Defendant
The argument is without merit.
2) According to evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, such as the Defendant’s legal statement in the lower court, the police statement in G, and the list of reported cases in 112, the fact that the Defendant obstructed the convenience store business of the victim G by force at H convenience stores.
Defendant
The argument is without merit.
3) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, such as the Defendant’s legal statement of the lower court, the police statement to J, the written statement of the police statement to J, the written statement of the case of 112 reported, the CCTV image CD, etc., the fact that the Defendant was aware of the police officer’s J, even if he was sent to the convenience store upon receiving the victim K’s 112 report at the convenience store and became aware of the police officer’s self-determination as his right hand, etc.
Defendant
The argument is without merit.
B. The Defendant seems to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime.
However, before the defendant.