logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.03.19 2015노191
공무집행방해등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal asserts that the punishment imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. It is recognized that the defendant recognized his mistake and reflected his mistake.

However, the Defendant committed the instant crime, however, under the pretext of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant conspiredd with the victim D to make a claim for liquor payment, etc.; (b) obstructed the performance of official duties by assaulting police officers dispatched after receiving the report; and (c) obstructed the business operations of the victim J and M, including restaurants operated by the victim J and M; and (d) the case is not mitigated; and (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for the purpose of obstruction of performance of official duties and injury in the Changwon District Court on June 10, 2014, and was under a suspended sentence of ten years for the purpose of obstruction of performance of official duties and injury; (c) the Defendant had already been punished several times as violent crimes; (d) the victims did not submit data on the recovery of damage to the victims; and (e) the Defendant did not have any special circumstances or circumstances that may be newly considered in sentencing after the issuance of the judgment below; and (e) the Defendant’s age, character, environment, motive and method and method of the instant sentencing and the record.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant is groundless. It is so decided as per

However, the court below's application of the statute

1. The phrase “Article 136(1)” under the applicable law on criminal facts is clear that the phrase “Article 136(1)” and “Article 314(1)” are erroneous statements under Article 314(1).

1. It is clear that “the choice of imprisonment” in the choice of punishment is the error of “the choice of imprisonment with prison labor”, and thus, the rules on criminal procedure.

arrow