logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2020.11.19 2020노799
공무집행방해등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, mistake of facts, and misapprehension of legal principles, ① the lower court’s full bench did not change the address and contact point of a defense counsel when it appoints a public defender, and thus, it could not reveal the truth of the case. Therefore, the right to receive assistance from

② 재물손괴의 점과 관련하여, 피고인은 발차기 동작을 했을 뿐 입간판에 접촉한 사실이 없음에도, 피고인과 다툼이 있어 피고인에게 불리한 진술을 할 가능성이 높아 신빙성을 인정할 수 없는 H의 진술을 믿어 입간판을 발로 찼다고 인정한 것은 잘못이고, 설령 입간판에 약간 긁힌 자국이 생겼다고 하여도 쌀국수집을 알리는 표식으로서 입간판의 효용을 해한 것이라고는 볼 수 없다.

③ In relation to the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, the Defendant did not assault the police officer, and the police officer’s statement was likely to make a false statement on behalf of the police officer, even if the police officer was not a seat of the Defendant, so it is unlawful to find him guilty of committing a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by reliance on the police officer’s statement without credibility. The above arrest is illegal because the police officer did not notify the Defendant of the principle of disturbance when he was arrested in the act of crime.

The defendant's defense counsel presented the statement of reasons for appeal on July 28, 2020, when submitting the statement of reasons for appeal (Supplementary note) on July 28, 2020, that "the defendant was able to take a way to salute on the roadside while the defendant was going on the way to salute, and the police officer was forced to take the H's speech that he was leading to the police officer before salute and was in the vicinity of the patrol," and that the defendant illegally arrested the defendant even if he was not a flagrant offender, it cannot be a legitimate reason for appeal due to the assertion after the time when the appellate brief was not timely, and even if ex officio examination was conducted, the defendant requested the submission of identification card to the defendant, thereby obstructing the performance of official duties.

arrow