logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.04.13 2017고단5742
공무집행방해등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On September 11, 2017, around 23:20 on September 11, 2017, the Defendant interfering with his/her duties arrived at a destination from the victim C (70 tax) in front of the Seoul Southern-gu, Seoul, and thus, upon receipt of a request to pay a taxi fee, the Defendant is under the influence of alcohol and without paying the taxi fee “????”

The age and age shall be as follows: Doz. Doz. Doz.

It was so large as to be "," and was prevented from operating a taxi over about 20 minutes, such as holding the front part of the steering group on drinking, etc.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's taxi business by force.

2. The Defendant, at the time and place specified in paragraph 1, has been in dispute as a matter of C and taxi fares, was unable to restrain the victim E (31) who was a policeman belonging to the D police station called the D police station upon receipt of C’s 112 report, only his/her own behavior. However, the Defendant, at the place where C and many people listen to, “I am out, Chewing, Chewing, flap, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch bitch, bitch, bitch bitch, bitch, etc.

C. E. E. f. A.L. A.T.D.

The victims were openly insulting by voiceed.

3. Whether the Defendant obstructed the performance of official duties at the time and place specified in paragraph 1, and at the place specified in paragraphs 1 and 2, the Defendant was found to have failed to arrest himself in the act of committing a crime with the intention to avoid disturbance, as described in paragraphs 1 and 2.

“Along with sound, assaulted the victim’s chests on three occasions, such as the victim’s chests.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning 112 report processing.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement protocol with respect to E and C;

1. A written statement prepared in C;

1. Complaint;

1. Investigation reports (Analysis of images recorded on the spot);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photograph the visual images;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act that prevents the performance of official duties (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties), Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing duties), Article 311 of the Criminal Act (the point of insulting duties) of the Criminal Act, and Article 136 of the Criminal Act that requires the choice of imprisonment with labor.

arrow