logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.12.12 2017고단3404
공무집행방해등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

【Criminal Records” On August 28, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for robbery, etc. at the Daejeon High Court, and was released on January 29, 2016 during the execution of the sentence at Daejeon Prison, and the parole period expired on February 19, 2016.

【Criminal facts】 On August 9, 2017, the Defendant: (a) reported 112 on the roads of Taejin-do, Daejeon Daejeon, Daejeon, Daejeon, about 154, 68, “Astrecked and escaped from other vehicles”; (b) demanded the Defendant to refrain from departing from the vehicle of Daejeon, Daejeon, Police Station D police Station D, Daejeon, to present his personal information, and to comply with drinking; (c) said F to the said F to take a drinking test; (d) the Defendant assaulted the f’s head on the ground by putting him/her on drinking once and her hand; and (e) assaulted the f’s head on the ground by sucking it over the floor of the said F; and (e) assaulted the f’s f’s head on the ground by making the f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s hand and f’s f’s f’s f’s hand.

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

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of C Spoon vehicles.

On August 9, 2017, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol content of 0.198% during blood transfusion 0.23:05 on August 23:05, and the Defendant driven the said vehicle and driven the said vehicle into the niven distance from the niven distance along with one lane in front of the church, along with three-lanes in front of the church in Daejeon East-gu.

The defendant engaged in driving service has a duty of care to avoid accidents by emphasizing the front side and accurately manipulating the brakes, steering devices, etc.

Nevertheless, the Defendant was negligent in performing the above duty of care in a state where normal driving is difficult due to influence of drinking, and continued along the two-lanes of the victim G (46 S) going along the two-lanes in the front direction, and the lower part of the lower part of the H Hasta taxi operated by the Defendant.

arrow