beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 마산지원 2013.05.01 2013고단164

업무방해등

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight 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. On February 4, 2013, at around 07:40, the Defendant: (a) entered the said restaurant within the “E” restaurant operated by the Victim D (hereinafter referred to as the “E”); (b) under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant: (c) took a bath for the victim to sit in the victim’s side while holding scambling 2 soldiers; and (d) reported the employee F (hereinafter referred to as the “F(41) while taking a bath, such as “scam and sprinking,” and (c) tried to take the victim D’s high school students who wish to walk while taking a bath, such as “scambling, scambling,” and (d) tried to take a bath to the husband of D, who is his husband.

For about one hour and 40 minutes, such as reporting to the police station that he/she was assaulted by himself/herself, and reported it to the police station, boomed the disturbance, so that two customers in the name-free will leave out of the food map, and interfered with the victim D's restaurant business affairs by force.

2. On February 4, 2013, at the same place as Paragraph 1, around 09:10 on February 4, 2013, the Defendant: (a) reported the disturbance to the police station that the Defendant was assaulted by G, a restaurant business owner; (b) the police officer, who was dispatched upon receipt of the Defendant’s report, sought to hear the Defendant’s contents from the Defendant, and (c) the Defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender after he sawd the head of the said I on the ground of a mathic disease.

피고인은 위 I 등 출동경찰관들에 의해 H지구대로 인치되어 가는 112순찰차 안에서도 I 등에게 “내가 너를 칼로 찔러 죽여버린다, 내가 못할 줄 아나, 내가 니를 칼로 그어삔다”라며 협박하였고, H지구대에 인치된 상태에서도 위 I 등 경찰관들을 향하여 “야 씨발놈아 내하고 한판 붙자”라고 욕설을 하였다.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning crime prevention of police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant;