2016 Highest 198 A. Violation of the Road Traffic Act (D. Drinking)

(b) Violence;

C. Performance of Official Duties

(d) Injury resulting from special obstruction of performance;

(e)damage to goods for public use;

Defendant 1. A. B. c. d. Seo-○ (68 - 1), Labor

2. D.M.O. (68-1), human fisheries;

Prosecutor's Preventive type (prosecutions) and Song-young (Public Trial)

Law Firm Seo-ho, a defense counsel (private ships for all of the defendants)

June 22, 2016

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

Criminal History Office

1. Violation of the Road Traffic Act by Defendant OO (driving) and violence;

(a) Violation of the Road Traffic Act;

On March 15, 2016: Around 50, the Defendant driven a 38r-ho SM520 car at a section of about 6 meters from the place where it is difficult to know the real flow of the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of 0.113%, from the place where it is difficult to identify the real flow of the Nam-gu, Incheon, Nam-gu, Seoul to the front day of the apartment with about 15 meters away.

(b) Violence;

As above, the Defendant parked a SM520 car on the front of the Incheon Southern apartment, which was 15-gu SM520 car, and walked down. The Defendant 12-day and body of the victim knife. The victim reported that the Defendant driven a drinking car, and was waiting for a police officer to sit at the victim’s 33-Gu ○○-ho car driving seat. The Defendant reported that the Defendant was driving a drinking car. The Defendant was able to report the victim’s report to the victim, on the part of the victim, and used the victim on the top of the car, and assaulted the victim at one time at the right knife of the victim’s right.

2. Defendants’ bodily injury resulting from obstruction of performance of official duties

피고인 서○○는 제1의 가항 기재 일시 · 장소에서 제1의 가항 기재와 같이 음주운전한 사람이 있다는 112 신고를 받고 현장 출동한 인천남부경찰서 용오파출소 소속 경위 김○○으로부터 제1의 나항 기재와 같은 폭행죄의 현행범인으로 체포되어 순찰차에 타게 되자, 순간적으로 순찰차 조수석 뒷문을 발로 차면서 순찰차에서 내려 김○○에게 " 왜 나만 태우느냐, 쟤들 ( 손○○ 일행 ) 도 태워라 " 고 소리치고 김○○을 밀친 다음, 김○○을 때릴 듯이 다가갔다 .

이때 위협을 느낀 김○○이 함께 출동한 순경 배○○로부터 건네받아 들고 있던 테이저건 ( Taser Gun, 전기충격기 ) 의 안전장치를 해제하고 피고인 서○○에게 조준하면서 발사를 경고하였으나 피고인 서○○는 이를 무시하고 계속 다가갔고, 이에 김○○이 피고인 서○○에게 테이저건을 발사하였으나, 전기침 1개는 외투에 꽂히고 나머지 1개는 튕겨나가 전기충격 기능이 작동되지 않았다. 피고인 서○○는 위 테이저건이 발사되자 격분하여 김○○에게 " 죽여 버리겠다 " 고 소리를 치며 김○○의 멱살을 잡아 흔들고, 주먹으로 몸통 부위를 수회 때렸다. 뒤이어 지원요청을 받고 출동하였던 용오파출소 소속 경장 박○○이 이를 제지하자, 피고인 서○○는 손으로 박○○의 가슴을 밀치고 손톱으로 우측 손목을 할퀴는 등 폭행하였다 .

Defendant Dol○○ in combination with Defendant ○○○○, and Kim○’s Dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol-dol

As a result, the Defendants carried a dangerous test, and interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on arrest of flagrant offenders, and inflicted injury on the victim Kim ○○, such as salt, tensions, etc. in the part of other and in detail requiring two-day medical treatment, which require a rest and stability for at least one month, to the victim Park ○○ in need of medical treatment for about two-time period of time, and on the victim’s booms and tensions in need of medical treatment.

3. Damage to an article for public use by Defendant ○○○;

The Defendant, at the date, time, time, and place mentioned in Paragraph 2 above, assaulted police officers by putting the test, which is a police gear, as described in Paragraph 2, 2 and 3 times, and boomed on the cement floor, taking the test string part, which was flicker, was flickly flicked, and flicked, which is a police gear used by a public office, such as destroying the string of the string with the numbers indicated.

4. The obstruction of performance of official duties by Defendant ○○

The defendant is arrested as a flagrant offender for the same criminal facts as the above 1-A and (b), and he/she March 2016.

16. 03: around 55, around the investigation and detention room of the Incheon Southern Police Station, in order to conduct physical search in order to examine whether the defendant is in possession of toxic chemicals of this case, in front of the investigation and detention room of the Incheon Southern Police Station, and to check inside the detention room, and to check the entry and surveillance inside the detention room, the defect "do not interfere with the performance of official duties" was broken down by the left side of the slopeboxe Bright, which was avoided in the process of leaving the house, without any investigation of why is why is why there is no reason.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the custody and escort of the police officer.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of the witness Kim ○○, Park ○○, Ma○○, and Kim Il-young;

1. Each police's statement on Bright to Boom, ○○, Bright to this end, and Kim ○;

1. Statement of a witness on the preparation of ○○;

1. Reports on internal accidents, reports on the results of crackdown on driving under influence of alcohol, reports on the circumstantial statements of drivers under influence of alcohol, investigation reports, and investigation reports (Submission of a statement of intent of the victimized police officer);

1. Three copies of a medical certificate, a medical certificate (a reduced hospital), a certificate of entrance and medical treatment (a reduced hospital), and the details of hospital treatment (a reduced hospital);

1. Written estimate (theme)

1. The suspect's book-○ license register; and

1. Deficial, reficial, on-site, and reficial photographs damaged;

1. Victims, motion pictures, CDs, criminal and atmosphere visual images, and ice and sing CCTV images;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Defendant Western ○○: Articles 148-2(2)2, 44(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act, 260(1)(a) of the Criminal Act, Articles 144(2) and (1), 136(1), 30(1), and 136(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act (the point of causing obstruction of performance of official duties by each special circumstance), and 136(1)(a)(b) of the Road Traffic Act: Defendant Treasury ○: Articles 144(2) and (1), 136(1), 30(1), and 141(1)(a) of the Criminal Act (the point of causing obstruction of official duties by each special circumstance)

1. Commercial competition;

Defendants: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Punishments imposed on the crimes of bodily injury resulting from the obstruction of performance of special duties by each judgment, and on the crimes of bodily injury resulting from the obstruction of performance of special duties by Kim ○○ who is the most severe criminal

1. Selection of punishment;

Defendants: Determination of imprisonment (Provided, That since the crime of bodily injury resulting from the obstruction of performance of special duties in the holding is stipulated only by imprisonment, no punishment is selected)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendants: Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 (Concurrent Crimes within the scope of adding up the maximum term of punishment prescribed for the crime of bodily injury resulting from special obstruction of performance of official duties as stated in the most severe punishment) of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendants: Determination as to the Defendants and their defense counsel’s assertion under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Summary of the assertion

With respect to the crime of injury caused by special obstruction of performance of official duties, ① the police officer’s suppression of the Defendants by using the test studs and huds does not constitute legitimate performance of official duties, so the Defendants’ resistance act does not constitute the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties. ② Defendant ○○ merely used straws, and used straws and straws, and did not assault the police by carrying dangerous things. ③ The damage suffered by the police officers does not reach the degree of injury or have no direct causal relation with the Defendant’s assault.

2. Determination:

A. Determination as to whether a legitimate performance of official duties was made

1) Relevant legal principles

The prevention, suppression, and investigation of a crime constitutes a police officer’s duty (Article 2 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers), and the specific contents, methods, etc. of such duty are delegated to a police officer’s reasonable discretion based on his/her professional judgment. Therefore, where a police officer performs his/her duty to suppress and investigate a crime according to the judgment that it is appropriate within the scope of his/her human and material capacity in light of the specific circumstances, unless it is deemed that such duty loses objective legitimacy and is considerably unreasonable (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7621, Nov. 11, 2010).

2) Determination

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the police officer’s performance of duties in order to arrest or suppress the Defendants at the time, time, and place as indicated in Paragraph 2 of the judgment below can be acknowledged as legitimate. Therefore, the Defendants and the defense counsel’s above assertion is not accepted. As indicated in Paragraph 1(a) of the judgment, Defendant 1, as indicated in the judgment, sent out to the scene after receiving a report on drinking driving, and four Defendants’ daily activities and six victims’ personal activities and two victims’ personal activities and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s request for a separate statement. However, the Defendants’ Nonindicted ○○○ and ○○○○ made an additional request for a police officer to stop the Defendant’s personal activities.

B) Although ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was arrested as a flagrant offender with the same crime as indicated in Paragraph 1, Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, he was assaulted by a police officer who tried to use the boom at the same time, or to use the boom at the same time. Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s seat, which was in the lower seat of the boom at which the boom was opened, tried to use the boom at the time of the police officer’s use of the boom at the time of the booming of the boom○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s seat. Defendant 2, supra, attempted to use the boom at the same time, and attempted to use the boom the boom of the boom and to use the boom by the police officer without permission.

If so, at the time Kim ○○ at the time, it is difficult for the Defendants to control the conduct of the Defendants by itself, and there is a possibility that the test is to use the test, and he was able to use it rather than ○○, and he was able to do so from ○○, the detailed situation at the time of the use.

In light of the above, it seems that it is within the scope of reasonable judgment, and it is difficult to view that it is considerably unreasonable by losing objective legitimacy.

다 ) 그 후 피고인들은 다시 순찰차 쪽으로 돌아왔는데, 피고인 엄○○은 계속하여 피해자 일행에게 위해를 가할 듯이 접근하고, 피고인 서○○는 순찰차 뒷좌석에 앉기를 거부하고 다시 순찰차의 앞쪽으로 이동하였으며, 이를 제지하는 김○○의 어깨 부위를 세게 밀치려 하면서 테이저건을 들고 있는 김○○의 팔 쪽으로 주먹을 휘둘렀다. 이에 김○○은 테이저건의 안전장치를 해제하고, 피고인 서○○에게 발사를 경고하면서 순찰차에 탑승할 것을 지시하였다. 박○○이 피고인 서○○를 인도하기 위하여 팔을 잡자 피고인 서○○는 이를 거칠게 뿌리치고 팔을 크게 휘두르면서 김○○에게 다가갔고, 김○○은 다가오지 말라고 경고하면서 뒤로 물러섰다. 피고인 서○○는 계속하여 김○○에게 욕설을 하고 다가가면서, 삿대질을 한 다음 바지 주머니에 손을 넣고 잠시 멈춰 섰다가, 다시 다가가면서 삿대질을 한 다음 바지 주머니에 손을 넣는 행동을 반복하였다. 이에 김○○은 피고인 서○○가 바지 주머니에서 흉기를 꺼내 덤벼들 것으로 판단하고 피고인 서○○에게 테이저건을 발사하였으나, 테이저건의 전기침 2개 중 1개는 피고인 서○○의 외투에 박히고 나머지 1개는 튕겨나가 제대로 작동이 되지 않았다. 피고인 서○○는 이에 극도로 흥분하여 김○○에게 달려들어 멱살을 잡고 몸통을 때리는 등 폭행을 가하였고, 이로 인하여 김○○은 테이저건을 떨어뜨렸다 .

As seen earlier, in a situation where there had already been several physical collisions and attempts to escape from the scene, Defendant Seo-○ had attempted to arrest another time, and thus, there was a need to control Defendant Seo-○○ as a police officer. Moreover, Defendant Seo-○’s warning of launch by showing Kim Jong-○ to Defendant Seo-○○○○ was an adequate means to suppress Defendant Seo-○○. However, Defendant Seo-○, despite being given a warning of theme low launch, repeated actions, she put Defendant Seo-○’s hand into Defendant Seo-○, which was then coming back without launching. Defendant Seo-○, including Defendant Kim Il-○, had been a police officer several times, and tried to escape from the scene. Defendant Seo-○, who had tried to stop the launch of theme at the time of launching theme, and determined that it was possible to include Defendant Seo-○’s attack in the situation at the time of launching theme, and that it was possible to stop the launch of theme in light of the following circumstances.

This does not seem to be remarkably unreasonable due to the loss of objective legitimacy.

The Defendants asserted to the effect that the use of the test bottom by Kim○, even though he was able to control the Defendant’s west, etc., even through he was able to control the Defendant’s west, it does not constitute legitimate performance of official duties. Kim○○○’s use of the test bottom from the test bottom without the first use of the lock or the three spons is somewhat inappropriate in terms of the stage of the means. However, police officers, including Kim○, at the time were subject to several assaults from the Defendants, and attempted to use the police gear to the maximum extent possible without using the police gear, but the Defendants’ conduct was very violently responding to it. Thus, even if they wanted to use the force of force, such as the lock or the three spons, even if it seems inevitable, it is difficult to conclude that the number of the Defendants’ conduct was the same as or similar to the number of police officers at the time, and that it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendants’ conduct without any specific pressure and pressure in light of the circumstances where the police officers could not be seen as necessary.

In fact, after the launch of the test, Defendant Seo-○ was flick fighting with a very flick body by leading to Kim ○○, and the conduct of the Defendants was also carried out. While Defendant Seo-○ was flickly resisted by Defendant Seo-○ in the process of taking a lock, Defendant Seo-○ was flickly resisting between police officers and Defendant Seo-○, and actively obstructed police officers, and assaulted Defendant Seo-○ at the same time, Defendant Seo-○ was flicked by three police officers. Defendant Seo-○ also was flicked to Defendant Seo-○○, who was flicked by Kim ○○, and was flicked to attack Kim ○○, even if it was flick, it was sufficiently possible for the Defendants to readily conclude that the Defendants were flick and flicked to attack Defendant Seo-○, who was flick to attack Defendant ○○, and then flicked to commit an attack without a strong pressure by a police officer.

D) After the Kim ○○ launched the test to the Defendant Sho○○, the Defendant Sho○ died in the process of assaulting the Defendant’s spoke in the course of the Defendant’s spoke, following the Defendant’s spoke spoke spoke spoke spoke spoke spoke spoke spoke spoke spoke spoke spoke spoke spoke spoke spokes on the head of the spoke spoke spoke spoke spoke spoke spoke spoke spoke spoke spoke spoke spoke spos, and again spoke spoke spoke spoke spoke spoke s. In the above circumstances, the Defendant’s spoke spoke spoke s.

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was frighten in line with the Defendant’s seat, left the scene to string the said fright. Meanwhile, Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ seat, which was frighting on the floor, continued to fright the Defendant’s seat, and left the fright at the same time. Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ seat, which was frighting on the top of the Defendant’s seat, tried to fright the Defendant’s fright at the same time. Defendant ○○○○○○ seat, which was frighted on the top of the Defendant’s seat, continued to fright the Defendant’s fright and fright the Defendant’s fright.

It is somewhat inappropriate for ○○○○○○ to take the price from the head or part of the Defendant’s ○○○○○○’s head or part of the ○○○○○. However, even before that, Defendant ○○ committed several assaults to Kim○○ and tried to use the test electric shock function. At that time, it is simple at the same time that Kim○○’s head or part of the meat to take over Kim○○’s her face with his left hand and strong her face. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that Kim○○’s head or part of the son’s head or part of the son○○○○○○○’s head or part of the son○○○○○○’s head or part of the son○○○○○’s head and part of the son○○○’s head and part of the son○○○. After that, Defendant ○○ sold the son○ part of the son○’s head and part of the son○’s official duties.

On the other hand, when the defendant ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○. However, the defendant ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○.

E) If so, in light of the specific circumstances at the time, Kim ○’s use of the test sacrife or sacrife as above is based on the determination that it is an appropriate measure within the scope of its human and physical capabilities.

As a performance of duties related to the suppression and investigation of crimes, a legitimate performance of official duties shall be deemed lawful, and the performance of official duties shall not be deemed unlawful as being considerably unreasonable due to the loss of objective legitimacy. Provided, That the aspects of some excessive or inappropriate parts in the performance of the above official duties should be considered as sentencing factors for the Defendants.

B. Determination as to whether a dangerous article was carried with it

1) A person who carried a dangerous object and committed a crime refers to a case where he carries a deadly weapon or other dangerous object under his intention to use it at the scene of the crime, and does not include the case where he carries it with himself, regardless of whether it is a crime. However, as long as he carries a dangerous object, such as a deadly weapon, etc. under his intention to use it at the scene of the crime or carries it with his body, it does not require the victim to recognize the fact or have actually used it for the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do914, Mar. 30, 2007, etc.).

In addition, the risk of a dangerous object should be determined depending on whether the other party or the third party would have caused the danger by using the dangerous object in light of social norms, depending on specific cases (see Supreme Court Decision 89Do1570, Dec. 22, 1989, etc.).

2) Determination

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, since the above ○○○○○○○○○’s head, which is a police gear that can cause electrical shock, has been cut down several times, and the meat string, which is the removal of safety devices on the head of the ○○○○○○○○○○, and the meat spherbs. Cracks. Cracks. The meats the head of ○○○○○○’s head, after which the meats were meated on several occasions, the above me was able to find that the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s head, who was a police officer’s meatum, was unable to use the meatum by carrying the me at the ○○○○○○○○’s body, and that the me was sufficiently aware of the risk of using the me at the time of the me’s use of the meatum.

C. Determination as to whether police officers were injured due to the Defendants’ assault

1) Relevant legal principles

The term “injury” refers to damaging the completeness of a victim’s body or impeding physiological functions. If a wound accompanied by an assault is extremely minor and need not be treated so long as it does not interfere with natural therapy and daily life, it does not constitute the injury of a victim. However, since it is premised on the same degree as a wound that may normally occur in the daily life even if there is no assault, it shall be the injury if the wound beyond such degree is caused by the assault. Whether it damages the completeness of the victim’s body or causes a physiological disorder, it shall not be objectively and uniformly determined, but shall be determined on the basis of the victim’s age, gender, body body and physical condition, etc. (see Supreme Court Decisions 9Do4305, Feb. 25, 200; 2005Do1039, May 26, 2005, etc.).

2) Determination

In light of the parts and degree of assault against the victims who can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, it can be recognized that the completeness of the body of the victims was damaged or interfered with physiological functions due to the Defendants’ assault. Although the contents of the opinion include that “the victim’s body was not clearly confirmed”, it cannot be deemed that the above statement is extremely minor and that there is no need for medical treatment. Rather, in light of the victim’s side and degree of assault against the victims, it is difficult for the victims to accept that the victims suffered a strong shock rather than normally occurring in their daily lives, and that the victims suffered an obstacle to their daily lives due to cruption, etc., and that the causal relation between the victims and the victim’s injury and the victim’s injury cannot be acknowledged. Accordingly, in light of the aforementioned circumstances and degree, the causal relation between the Defendants and the victim’s injury and the victim’s injury cannot be acknowledged.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant’s letter

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for one year and six months to nine years; and

(b) Crimes of causing bodily injury to the obstruction of special performance of official duties in judgment on the sentencing criteria1): Basic crimes;

[Determination of Kind] Crimes of Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties: Type 1 (Bodily Injury or Injury caused by Special Obstruction of Public Duties)

[Special Convicts] Where there are many public officials who have suffered damage, (aggravating factors), or where the performance of official duties is excessive or inappropriate (aggravating factors)

[Scope of Recommendation] Crimes of Violation of the Road Traffic Act (Drunk Driving) in the basic area, imprisonment of 2 years to 4 years: Crimes of assault in the judgment of Sentencing 3)

【Determination of Type of Violence】 Type 1 (General Violence)

【No Special Convicted Person】

[Scope of Recommendation] Crimes of Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties in the Basic Field, Imprisonment between February and October 4]

[Determination of Type] The obstruction of Performance of Official Duties

【No Special Convicted Person】

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, the range of recommending punishment according to the standards for multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years (the crime for which sentencing guidelines are set and the crime for which sentencing guidelines are not set are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act between the crimes for which sentencing guidelines are set and the crime for which sentencing guidelines are not set, only the lower limit of the sentencing criteria set for the crime shall be considered)

C. Determination of sentence: Each of the crimes of this case in two years and six months is extremely poor in terms of the motive, circumstance, means and method of the crime, number of victims, degree of damage, circumstances after the crime, etc. The defendant was under the influence of alcohol and assaulted by the victim ○○ and the victim ○○ who was under trial. The defendant resisted with the co-defendant ○○ in the police upon receiving the report, and her resistance with the co-defendant ○. The defendant did not commit any of the crimes of this case with three police officers while carrying the test sturging the defendant, and inflicted an injury upon the defendant, and thereby interfered with the performance of official duties by assaulting three police officers while entering the detention room. Accordingly, the defendant did not have any significant mental pressure and behavior of the defendant, and the victim did not have any sufficient mental pressure to the extent that the defendant was under the influence of punishment for obstruction of the performance of official duties. Accordingly, the defendant was not under the influence of punishment for the crime of this case, even if there was an inevitable force for the defendant to take into account the above crimes of this case.

However, the sentencing guidelines shall be determined in accordance with the sentencing guidelines, comprehensively taking into account the following factors: (a) the defendant has made a statement that he/she is against himself/herself while making a confession of part of each of the crimes in this case; (b) the fact that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine; and (c) other factors of sentencing specified in the trial process in this case

2. Defendant’s premium ○

(a) The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for a year and six months from June to June 18; and

(b) Crimes of causing bodily injury to the obstruction of special performance of official duties in judgment on the sentencing criteria1): Basic crimes;

[Determination of Kind] Crimes of Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties: Type 1 (Bodily Injury or Injury caused by Special Obstruction of Public Duties)

[Special Convicts] Where there are many public officials who have suffered damage, (aggravating factors), or where the performance of official duties is excessive or inappropriate (aggravating factors)

[Scope of Recommendation] The crime of damaging Public Goods in Basic Field, Imprisonment with labor for two years to four years 2)

[Determination of Type] Crimes of Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties: Category 1 (Invalidity of Public Goods) (Special Convicts) (In the event that the performance of official duties is excessive or inappropriate, the elements of mitigation)

[Recommendation Scope of Punishment] The range of recommendations according to the criteria for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for two to four years; and imprisonment for two years and six months; each crime of this case committed with co-defendant ○○ in the line of duty by the police; the defendant resisted with three police officers, who had a dangerous object far away from the floor, and inflicted three bodily harm; and the crime is extremely poor in light of the motive, circumstance, means and method of the crime, the number of victims, degree of damage, and circumstances after the crime. In particular, when considering that the defendant brought the test on the body of the police officers, or tried to use the electrical shock function, it is inevitable to take into account that the defendant was punished by imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, and that the defendant was punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a more severe injury than that of the police officers, and that the defendant was punished by imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of this case, and that the defendant did not use his or her own force to the extent that he or she did not have any physical harm.

However, the defendant stated that he/she is against the defendant while making confession of some of the crimes of this case, the fact that the defendant has no previous convictions other than twice a fine shall be considered as favorable to the defendant, and other factors of sentencing as shown in the trial process of this case, such as the age, character, conduct and environment of the defendant, shall be comprehensively taken into account in accordance with the sentencing guidelines.

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

As stated in Paragraph 2 of the judgment, the Defendants interfered with the police officer's performance of official duties, and three persons in non-name threaten the Defendants to the above police officer, and prevented them from arresting the Defendants by body.

As a result, the Defendants interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the arrest of flagrant offenders by the threat of multiple force with three persons in poor name, and suffered injury such as the statement in Paragraph 2 of the decision.

2. Determination

A. The term "multi-party" refers to a group of many people who did not form a group, which refers to a majority of people who show collective power to the extent that they cause fear of causing them to feel pressure, and the term "power of multiple persons" refers to a group of people, which refers to a group of people who live in a large number of people, and the number of those persons shall be determined by taking into account the various circumstances as at the time of the act, and in this case, the intent of the other party does not need to be practically controlled, but the degree of perception of the other party's ability to control the other party's intent should be determined (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do174, Feb. 10, 2006, etc.).

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, it can be recognized that the Defendants committed the crimes listed in Paragraph 2 of the judgment together with two offenses. However, if the number of persons is only four, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendants neglected multiple force (see Supreme Court Decision 71Do1930, Dec. 21, 1971). The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendants neglected multiple force, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the charges of this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because they fall under the case where there is no proof of criminal facts. However, as long as the defendant is found guilty of a crime causing bodily injury resulting from special obstruction of performance of official duties due to carrying dangerous articles in relation to

The judge's personal display

Judges in the order of precedence

Judge Powers Governing Authority