logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2013.06.05 2012노2780
공무집행방해등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (e.g., the crime of this case) is unreasonable in light of all the circumstances, including that the defendant interfered with the business of the convenience store, damaged the passenger car of the victim J, which had been a customer of convenience store, and obstructed the performance of official duties and inflicted bodily injury upon the police officers performing legitimate official duties by using violence. The crime is not good, and the defendant has already been punished nine times for the same crime. In light of all the circumstances, the punishment of this case (i.e., imprisonment for one year, suspension of execution, two years for probation, two years for community service, 120 hours for alcohol service, and 40 hours for alcohol treatment lectures (two years for former sentence) imposed by the court below) is too uneased.

2. The Defendant’s act of finding a convenience store operated by the Victim F at the time of alcohol and obstructing the victim F’s convenience store business for about 10 minutes by avoiding disturbance, obstructing the Defendant’s desire to take the convenience store out of the convenience store, and taking the Defendant out of the convenience store with H depending on H, thereby damaging the above car owned by the victim JJ at KRW 903,133, cost of repairing the said car, and preventing the police officer from acting upon receiving a report, and obstructing the police officer’s legitimate performance of his duties by using violence, and preventing the Defendant from taking advantage of the same kind of crime as the Defendant’s act of taking advantage of the need to put the victim police officer under suspension of the execution of his duties. Considering that the Defendant’s act of taking advantage of the fact that the Defendant’s act of taking advantage of the convenience store, Ha’s act of taking advantage of his desire to take care of the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties at the same time, and that the Defendant’s act of taking advantage of the same kind of crime against the Defendant’s public authority.

arrow