logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2016.12.01 2016고단2231
업무방해등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On September 10, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc.) at the Cheongju District Court on September 10, 2015, and is currently under probation after the judgment became final and conclusive on September 18, 2015.

1. On September 21, 2016, from around 08:52 to around 09:03 of the same day, the Defendant interfered with business: (a) at the “E restaurant operated by Cheongju-si, the victim D, for the reason that he was issued a written notification of the payment of penalty for violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (mix disturbance disturbance) upon the victim’s report; (b) on the ground that he received a written notification of the payment of penalty by the victim’s report, the said written notification was collected on the trust; (c) the victim’s article quality; and (d) the Defendant reported the fact that the Defendant was cut down.” The Defendant sent the door to the customers who drink in the restaurant by raising a disturbance, such as making a different amount of money to the customers who drink in another consignment, and put the customers on the restaurant at the restaurant.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force between approximately 11 minutes.

2. At around 09:18, Sept. 21, 2016, the Defendant: (a) committed violence against G on the floor of the Cheongju Police Station, which was called the “E” restaurant on September 21, 2016; (b) G, a police officer of the Cheongju Police Station, who was dispatched to the site after receiving the 112 report, called the “satisfing a disturbance at the Cheongju Police Station”; and (c) G, stating that “I am out,” “I am out,” and that “I am young police officer at one time the face of G.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement concerning G and D;

1. A letter of entrustment;

1. A detailed statement on processing the 112 reported cases (the first dispatch), and a detailed statement on processing the 112 reported cases (the second dispatch);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning CCTV images 41 copies after a CCTV closure, CDs inside a restaurant, police booms video CDs;

1. Article 314 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts and the choice of punishment.

arrow