logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 진주지원 2016.08.10 2016고단583
공무집행방해등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months and by a fine not exceeding 500,000 won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. Around 01:55 on April 13, 2016, the Defendant’s interference with the performance of official duties, and the statement that the Defendant lost personal belongings, such as a mobile phone, etc., at the Jinju-si B, after receiving a report from 112, the Defendant requested the victim E from the slope of the Jinju Police Station D District of the Police Station, who called out to the said area, to track the Defendant’s cell phone location, but it is difficult to track the Defendant’s location from the damaged person. However, the Defendant’s statement that the Defendant’s location was in the same place where there are many people, such as the above a room operator F, is why the Defendant was unable to trace the Defendant’s location.

I would like to die the Chewing flaz flab

Man Man Mazk

Barab Baba

The term "spits spit with large sounds, spits the victim's face once, and spits the victim's spit, once again, as it threatens the victim's fat, once more. Accordingly, the defendant openly insultings the victim, and interfered with the police officer's legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of reports.

2. On April 13, 2016, the Defendant violated the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act: (a) around 03:45, Jinju-si, Jinju-si, 24 Gaon-ro, the Defendant was unable to avoid disturbance for about five minutes, such as the Defendant, who was solicited to return home from the police officer in charge, a large voice, and was able to walk the front door of the police station, which became favorable to the Defendant, because he was unable to undergo an investigation into the crime of insult and obstruction of performance of official duties due to the influence of alcohol.

Accordingly, the defendant, at a public office, was very roughly slick by very rough words and actions.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made in relation to F, E, and G;

1. Application of 7 photographs and 1 CDs-1 Acts and subordinate statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (Interference with the performance of official duties, selection of punishment by imprisonment), Article 311 of the Criminal Act (Appointment of insult), Article 3 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (the fact of disturbance of public document, the selection of punishment by imprisonment), Article 3 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (the selection of fines);

1. The aggravated Criminal Act for concurrent crimes.

arrow