(영문) 창원지방법원 통영지원 2017.11.28 2017고단1586

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 창원지방법원 통영지원 2017.11.28 2017고단1586

공무집행방해

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On July 24, 2017, the Defendant: (a) took a taxi under the influence of alcohol in the vicinity of the office of Gapo-dong, a Gapo-dong, and took a bath without speaking the destination; (b) on the other hand, the Defendant reported a civil petition to E and Dof with the circumstances in which the said Gapo-dong belongs to the Dopo-gu Police Station D, which is located in C at the Dopo-si.

The Defendant assaulted F’s face on one occasion by asking questions about where the destination is given by F, taking a bath, and taking a bath.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against F and B;

1. A certificate;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime. Article 136 (Selection of Penalty)

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the Criminal Procedure of the Provisional Payment Order is an offense that inflicts an injury on the police officers who act as a means of protecting the lives and bodies of citizens, and thus, it is necessary to severely punish the police officers to the extent that there is a risk of undermining the public security power and undermining the safety of citizen life.

However, considering the fact that the defendant has no record of the same kind of crime obstructing the execution of official duties, and that the defendant was the only one time before the suspension of the execution of 25 years prior to violence, and that the defendant was both aware of and reflects the mistake, and that the case was the crime committed by contingency while under the influence of alcohol, the defendant is also a criminal act committed by force under the influence of alcohol. In addition, in addition, considering the character and behavior of family balance in family relations, the course of the case, and the subsequent circumstances, the defendant may be sentenced to a punishment if re-offending is conducted,

참조조문

-형법 제69조 제2항

-형법 제70조 제1항

-형법 제136조 제1항

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 통영지원 2018.02.23 2017고단1736

-창원지방법원 2020.04.17 2020고단530

-창원지방법원 2020.11.30 2020고단3276

-창원지방법원 2021.04.28 2021고단609

-창원지방법원 2020.11.11 2020고단2550