logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.11.19 2015고단353
공무집행방해등
Text

1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months;

2. Provided, That the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

3.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On January 10, 2015, at around 20:40, the Defendant: (a) 112 reported 112 by E, a taxi engineer, and called “D” in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju; (b) the victim G (the age of 47) sent out to the same place; (c) expressed the victim’s desire and verbal abuse to “Is the victim of the defect that “Is theme, why???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

As a result, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the dispatch of 112 report and arrest of flagrant offenders, and at the same time injured the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of a witness G and I (the testimony of a witness is consistent, differently from the witness's statement, the witness's false statement does not appear to be reliable in light of the witness's attitude to make a statement in this court);

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a place where the F police box is service, photograph of a victim, and written diagnosis of injury;

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;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Determination of the defendant and defense counsel's assertion under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order

1. As to the assertion that there was no injury, the defendant and his defense counsel argued that there was no injury to the victim as stated in the judgment, but the victim's investigative agency and the victim.

arrow