beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.09.04 2015고단1005

공무집행방해등

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. Interference with business;

A. On January 1, 2015, the Defendant obstructed the convenience store business of the victim by force by avoiding disturbance, such as the victim’s damage to his/her son F’s son, who, without obtaining the consent of the victim (hereinafter “the victim’s e-mail”) from the E-mail store operated by Mapo-gu Seoul, the Defendant: (a) was unable to enter the victim’s convenience store by stating that “the victim’s e-mail has been protrudinged by the flab; and (b) the victim’s flab, who intends to enter the convenience store by bringing one flab and one flab on credit at the entrance of the convenience store.”

B. At around 01:00 on April 2015, the Defendant demanded that female employees follow alcohol at “I” restaurant operated by the victim H located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by force by preventing the victim from receiving customers by smoking eggs, such as spiting alcohol on the floor, cutting off the bottle, spiting spits, etc.

2. 공무집행방해 피고인은 2015. 4. 21. 02:00경 제1의 가항 기재 E편의점 앞 길에서, 술에 취한 채 편의점에 들어가 소란을 피우다가 112신고를 받고 출동한 서울마포경찰서 J지구대 소속 경사 K으로부터 귀가를 종용받자 “야 이 개새끼야, 뭐하는 새끼들이냐, 니가 뭔데 그래.”라고 욕설을 하면서 손으로 위 K의 오른쪽 뺨을 1회 때리고, 오른쪽 주먹으로 왼쪽 턱을 1회 때린 다음 오른쪽 발로 왼쪽 정강이를 1회 걷어 찼다.

As a result, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to K and H;

1. Each written statement D or L;

1. Report on investigation (statements of shots);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (Interference with business and choice of imprisonment) and Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act for the sake of obstruction of performance of official duties, as well as the choice of punishment for the crime.