logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2014.10.02 2014고합223
특수공무집행방해치상
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 6,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On May 30, 2014, around 16:33, the Defendant was subject to control on the ground of illegal parking from E(57 years of age) who is a public official of the parking control of the Daejeon Viewing Construction and Transportation Bureau, who regulates illegal parking, at the edge of the front side of the D road located in Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon.

The Defendant, “I have been subject to the front control and control,” and “I will go beyond the floor,” while getting on the driver’s seat of the above vehicle and getting on the stop and crackdown on the vehicle behind the vehicle, he left the vehicle, and turned down the breast part of E by shocking the rear side of E on the rear side of the vehicle.

As a result, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning parking regulation of E, and at the same time, the defendant puts the salt of the shoulder pipe, tensions, and the elbows in the elbows that require treatment of E for about two weeks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of E, G and H;

1. A partial statement of the I;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes (Punishment on which the punishment is heavier than that of an injury);

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act denies the criminal intent of obstruction of performance of official duties and injury. However, the defendant, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, was found as follows: ① When parking control was conducted from E and G, the defendant: (i) when the defendant was parked from E and G, i.e., he raised a large interest with I, who is a DNA emotional guidance personnel; (ii) the defendant was considerably interested in the vehicle to resolve the state of violating parking regulations after the ditch, and (iii) the defendant was entering the two-way road to confirm the moving of the defendant's vehicle to another place; and (iv) the defendant was getting on the driver's seat.

arrow