logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.04.13 2017고단2504
업무방해등
Text

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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. 폭행 피고인은 2017. 11. 06. 06:40 경 아산시 B에 있는, C 편의점에서, 술에 취하여 아무런 이유 없이, 위 편의점 앞 테이블에 앉아 있던 피해자 D(22 세 )에게 “ 뭘 쳐다보냐,

C. Does the shape of the swelthus, the swelthal swelthy;

When referring to the Defendant’s desire, the Defendant’s head abused the victim on two occasions the part of the victim’s head.

2. On November 06, 2017, from around 06:40 to around 07:00 the same day, the Defendant obstructed the Defendant’s business operation from the “C convenience store” of the victim E’s operation as stated in the said paragraph 1. to the “C convenience store,” with a large amount of voice under the influence of alcohol, and caused a disturbance between about 20 minutes, such as reducing the floor by cutting the products displayed in front of the calculating unit.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's convenience store business by force.

3. On November 06, 2017, around 07:15, the Defendant: (a) was on the street before the “C convenience store” as set forth in the foregoing paragraph 1., and (b) was unable to start as a police station after investigating the circumstances of the instant case against the Defendant, etc. by the police officer G of the F District District of the ASEAN Police Station called up after receiving a report from 112 regarding the preceding paragraph; (c) was to patrol the Defendant, etc. and to start as a police station; (d) the first hand hand of the said patrol vehicle; (e) the Defendant was able to take off the patrol vehicle; and (e) he did not start the patrol vehicle; and (e) he did not take off the patrol vehicle, and (e) was frightened by G with the driver from the patrol vehicle, and by both descendants.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a written statement of witness and witness of H, I, D, and E;

1. Relevant Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of violence), Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with the performance of public duties), the selection of fines for each crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act, and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes.

arrow