logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2017.05.24 2017고단12
공무집행방해
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On December 31, 2016, around 22:00, the Defendant argued with a taxi driver as a matter of payment of taxi charges at the Yacheon Police Station C police box located in Yacheon-si B. On December 31, 2016, the Defendant took an inquiry of the reasons why the taxi driver did not pay the taxi charges from D in the region where the place was located, and assaulted the above D, on the head’s part, by taking one time the head’s son.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the control of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A report on investigation;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The main sentence of Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The punishment for the prevention of recidivism shall be determined by taking into account the following circumstances in the grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act, the main sentence of Article 59(1) of the Act on the Observation, etc. of Protection and Social Service Orders, and all other conditions of sentencing, including the Defendant’s age, environment, and degree of assault;

The circumstances disadvantageous to the defendant: The defendant has the same power and force of violence, the police officer D who is the object of the obstruction of the performance of official duties wants the punishment of the defendant: The defendant recognized and reflected the crime of this case, and the defendant deposited one million won for the police officer D who is the object of the obstruction of the performance of official duties.

arrow