beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.17 2018고단841

철도안전법위반

Text

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

around 14:30 on October 4, 2015, the Defendant was aboard the train “Seoul FTX C” while possessing the “Seoul FTX B (14:5 minutes of departure)” ticket.

No person shall interfere with the performance of duties of railroad workers by violence or intimidation.

Nevertheless, at around 16:12 on the same day, the Defendant filed a civil petition for the cancellation of the towing of boarding tickets and the recurrence against the victim G (the age of 26) who is the crew member of the EF Team at the platform No. 7 of the D Station No. 16:12, the Defendant assaulted the victim's right shoulder, with his hand, by stating that the victim neglected the other passengers' behavior of guiding him/her. "When he/she makes double payment, he/she should do so."

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the passenger guidance service duty, such as the implementation and guidance of railroad workers' reception and return of passengers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry of the defendant in part of the twelveth trial records of the court before transfer;

1. Witness G, H, I, and J's testimony;

1. Each police statement made to G, H and I;

1. Written Statement;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a personnel appointment and a victim victim's photograph;

1. Article 78 (1) or 49 (2) of the relevant Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Penalty fine of KRW 1,000,000 to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the inducement of a workhouse;

1. Article 59(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Pronouncement of Sentence 59(1) [The defendant alleged that he/she did not have any physical contact even though he/she made a claim against the victim, but that he/she did not have any physical contact. However, since the statements made by crew H in the investigative agency and the courtroom are consistent in accordance with logical and empirical rules as well as the statements made by crew members in compliance with the logical rules and empirical rules, the defendant may be recognized as having committed an assault, such as shuping