(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.04.26 2017노1614

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) 서울서부지방법원 2018.04.26 2017노1614

경범죄처벌법위반

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, had no fluorous or fluorous speech or behavior by a government office.

B. The sentence that the lower court sentenced to the Defendant (an amount of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., the Defendant stated that he/she recognized the instant facts charged on the first trial date of the lower court, and ii) at the investigative agency, the Defendant did not demand the Defendant to pay the taxi fee when he/she reported by police officers in the earth.

“..” The police officer, “in the course of carrying the flag for police officers,” and the police officer’s flag;

Denmarked Happed Happed

If “I would be satisfy, I would have satisfy.

H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H.

(3) The police officer E stated that “A victim’s report sent to the scene and solicited the Defendant to pay a fare, but the Defendant refused to do so, and requested the Defendant to pay a taxi fee to the police station at the Cdistrict, which arrived at this request, but the Defendant continued to do so without complying with the demand by the Defendant while under the influence of alcohol. The Defendant recommended the police officer H to pay a fare and return home to the home, and the Defendant recommended the Defendant to return home to the same police station.

Denmarked Happed Happed

(4) The legislative purport of the aforementioned provision is that the police officer could not properly perform his/her duties as the counter-party to the Defendant, and the legislative purport of the said provision is that: (a) the video CD taken by the police officer E is taken to avoid a disturbance for a considerable time, such as making the Defendant a sound to the police, taking the appearance of the Defendant, bringing the face to close the police; and (b) the police officer appears to have failed to perform his/her duties as the counter-party to the Defendant; and (c) the legislative purport of the said provision is the National Assembly.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2017.11.15 2017고정1272

-서울남부지방법원 2014.06.17 2014고단1505

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2019.05.30 2019고단407

-의정부지방법원 2017.11.14 2017고정827

-창원지방법원 2017.11.08 2017고단443