(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.05.25 2015노2639 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.05.25 2015노2639

공무집행방해등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the victim, who is the police officer of the police, was able to control the defendant by using other methods in a net manner when the defendant is at the time of his/her suppression, despite the fact that it is possible to control the defendant, the victim was pushed over the defendant's hand too severely and promptly so that the defendant could not easily conceal the defendant's hand.

Therefore, the obstruction of the execution of official duties of this case and the injury of the defendant constitute a legitimate defense to defend the present unfair infringement (Provided, That the defendant's improper assertion on the sentencing of the defendant is raised after the lapse of the period for filing an appeal, and thus cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal). 2. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the court below divided the victim's hand over to the extent that the defendant's hand is too seriously and is unlikely to be hidden by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the defendant constitutes a legitimate defense is without merit.

(1) A victimized police officer shall consistently state that he/she does not enjoy the defendant's timber from the investigative stage to the court of the original trial.

② According to the investigation report (STV image attached) video showing the instant site, the police officer F and the Defendant’s wife’s her her son who divided his her flocks about the victim’s right at the Defendant’s house to the effect that the Defendant’s her flocks divided his flocks and divorceds the Defendant’s flocks by dividing his flocks into his flocks, and the victimized police officer appears to have her flicked the Defendant’s flicks and flicked the Defendant’s flicks to the Defendant’s flicks, and the Defendant’s flicks do not appear to have been her flick on the part of the Defendant’

③ In addition, the Defendant was pushed down the timber of the victimized police officer even.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2015.10.30 2015고합94

-서울고등법원 2016.05.13 2015노3281

-울산지방법원 2016.12.22 2016노1376

-수원지방법원 2018.06.05 2017노8188

-창원지방법원 2020.11.18 2020고정384