(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.01.19 2014구단5444

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) 의정부지방법원 2015.01.19 2014구단5444

자동차운전면허취소처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. At around 11:05 on March 27, 2014, the Plaintiff obstructed the legitimate performance of public duties of traffic control police officials on the grounds that: (a) on the ground that (b) the Plaintiff, while driving a D liquid vehicle on the street in front of the city B, pursuant to Article 93(1)14 of the Road Traffic Act, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s license for Class 1 and Class 2 ordinary driving vehicles (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on April 18, 2014 on the ground that: (c) the Plaintiff’s vehicle was spited by a traffic police officer who controlled the traffic; and (d) the traffic control police officer who took part in the operation of a spiting a spiting, spited the complaint by the traffic police officer; and (d) the traffic control police officer who took part in the border.

B. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was ruled dismissed on June 17, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 12 (including each number in case of additional evidence), the whole purport of oral argument

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Plaintiff’s spits spits itself on the face of a traffic control police officer, and thus does not constitute a case where the Plaintiff interferes with the performance of official duties of the traffic control police officer.

(2) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not have caused a traffic accident for 30 years or longer, and that the Plaintiff’s act is relatively minor, etc., the instant disposition is too harsh and constitutes an abuse of discretion.

B. (1) As to the existence of the grounds for disposition, the assault refers to the exercise of tangible force against a person's body, and in particular, in the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, the assault refers to the exercise of tangible force against a public official performing official duties, and the assault refers directly or indirectly to a public official performing official duties. According to the aforementioned evidence, according to each of the above evidence, the Plaintiff was controlled by the signal violation, and thereafter

참조조문

-도로교통법 제93조 제1항 제14호

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2014.10.16 2014고정1389

-광주지방법원 2015.06.09 2014노2044

-대구지방법원 2021.03.31 2020노2798

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.15 2014노2224

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.10 2015노2661