beta
(영문) 울산지방법원 2018.05.25 2018고단414

공무집행방해

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On January 23, 2018, the Defendant: (a) in Mart located in Ulsan-gu C around 16:38 on January 23, 2018, from D, the owner of the business; and (b) whether the Defendant has stolen the object before passing through it.

“On the basis of questions asked to the effect that “,” it was difficult to avoid disturbance while taking a bath.

이에 112 신고를 받고 현장에 출동한 울산 남부 경찰서 E 지구대 소속 경찰 공무원인 경장 F이 D로부터 사실관계를 청취한 후 피고인이 작은 물건을 들고 나가는 듯한 모습이 찍혀 있는 CCTV 영상을 출력한 A4 용지를 제시하면서 절도 혐의에 대하여 질문을 하자, “ 씨 발, 안 가져갔는데 왜 지랄이고, 느그들 다 지옥에 데려갈 거야 ”라고 고성을 지르면서 오른팔로 위 F의 왼쪽 가슴을 툭 치고, A4 용지를 빼앗아 위 F의 얼굴을 향해 집어 던지는 등 폭행하여 112 신고 처리업무 등에 관한 경찰공무원의 정당한 직무집행을 방해하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of investigation reports (report on the confirmation of CCTV images at the scene of crime) Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime. Article 136 (Selection of Penalty)

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The crime of this case for the reason of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is an unfavorable circumstance against the defendant, on the ground that the defendant committed an assault while taking the garment against a police officer wearing clothes who was dispatched to the scene after receiving a report 112, and the nature and circumstances of the crime are not good, and the fact that the defendant did not receive a letter from the victimized police officer until now is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, it seems that the defendant's mistake is recognized and against his own mistake, the extent of violence and obstruction of official duties is relatively minor, and the police officer dispatched to the site at the time is thought to be mistaken for himself as a larceny without entering his own speech, and it would result in a contingent crime.