logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.07.25 2018고단918
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 March 3, 2018, the Defendant: (a) received a report from Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, on the road front of the road, “A person seated on the road,” and received a recommendation from D police officers belonging to the Seoul East-gu Police Station, Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, to leave the road under the influence of alcohol, and (b) expressed that the above police officers attempted to stop on the road under the influence of alcohol, and (c) stated that “I am out, I am out, I am out, I am out, I am out,” and (d) expressed that the above police officers attempted to stop the Defendant, “I am out, I am out, I am out, I am the Defendant together with the above police officers, and am out of the left face of the above police officers who recommended him to go back to India continuously.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of duties by police officers on public peace and maintenance of order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness D and E;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A report on investigation (a statement by a wooden person);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the 112 Reporting Case Handling List;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 62 (1)

1. The Defendant alleged that the Defendant was in a state of mental or physical loss or mental weakness under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime. Thus, according to the evidence adopted and investigated by this court, the Defendant appears to have been in a state of drinking alcohol at the time. However, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions, and thus, the above assertion cannot be accepted.

arrow