beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.12.14 2017고단2999

공무집행방해

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On October 3, 2017, at around 01:07, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol in the C hotel 2 elevator in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, and the Defendant committed assault, i.e., the Defendant, upon receiving a report from 112 staff members of the hotel 2nd floor of Mapo-gu, Mapo Police Station Down-gu, Seoul, who was called up, solicited the Defendant to return home, and the Defendant was able to wear back the face of the above E once, on his own drinking.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning 112 reporting handling duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of F’s written Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 136 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

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

1. The Defendant’s reasoning for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is against the Defendant, the primary offender, and the partial deposit of money for the victimized police officers, as well as all the factors of sentencing, including the background of the crime, the degree of force used, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, and environment. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant was in a physical and mental state or mental weak state under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case.

According to the records, although the defendant can be acknowledged that he was drinking at the time of the crime of this case, in light of the background leading up to the crime of this case, the means and method of the crime of this case, and the defendant's speech and behavior before and after the crime of this case, the defendant was under the influence of alcohol and had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

Since the above argument cannot be accepted, it shall not be accepted.