beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from September 7, 2013 to January 10, 2018.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 6, 2013, the Plaintiff reported to 112 that “A person who had resided with his family in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 402, together with his family, was slicking from the upper floor (502)” on September 22, 2013.
B. On the Plaintiff’s above report, D, a police officer belonging to the Seoul Bupyeong Police Station C District, and E visited the resident at around 22:40 on the same day, and returned to the resident at around 502 on the same day.
C. Since then, the Plaintiff requested the resolution of upper floor noise by telephoneing 112 more than seven times in total until 23:29, and expressed complaints against the delay in mobilization to the police.
12 The person in charge of the general situation room in charge of the plaintiff's second and second reports notified the Eunpyeong Police Station of the contents of the receipt, and the Seoul Bupyeong Police Station was terminated without order and did not send the patrol car to the C District.
E. Upon the continuation of the Plaintiff’s report as above, F, G, D, and H, a police officer belonging to the Seoul Bupyeong Police Station C District, called the Plaintiff’s residence at around 23:40 on the same day, and arrested the Plaintiff as a flagrant offender suspected of obstruction of performance of official duties.
(hereinafter “Arrest of this case.” At the time, the police officers, who followed the Plaintiff’s resistance and sound, forced the Plaintiff to restrain the police officers, and forced the Defendant to wear back water.
F. F, G, D, and H visited and confirmed the “written arrest of flagrant offender” by the police officer “D” at the above B lending No. 502. Although the Plaintiff did not discover the proviso to causing noise, the Plaintiff’s attention was justifiable, and notified the Plaintiff of the result of the measure taken. However, on eight occasions, the Plaintiff filed a false report, and filed a false complaint on the part of F, etc. eight times via which the 112 civil petition reporting case is wide, and filed a false complaint on the part of F, etc. to the effect that he would not take a bath or intimidation against F, etc. to the effect that he would not interfere with the treatment of civil petitions.