(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.07.03 2018고단7084

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) 수원지방법원 2019.07.03 2018고단7084

업무방해등

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 two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On October 6, 2018, at around 19:40 on October 6, 2018, the Defendant: (a) under the influence of alcohol within the D key points operated by the victim C (hereinafter “instant key points”); (b) refused a request from the victim for a request from the victim to walk up a trial to the customers who were seated on the other table without any justifiable reason; and (c) continued to sound within the instant key points and put about a 30-minute failure.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's main business.

2. The Defendant: (a) at the date, time, and place of the performance of official duties set forth in Paragraph (1) of this Article, and at the place, “any male fessing to fessing to fessing to fesssing to guests,” and (b) the police officer sent out after receiving 112 reports, confirmed the reporter’s report details, etc.; (c) asked him/her about his/her personal information; and (d) asked him/her to have his/her home home home to be used; (d) refused to do so; and (e) asked him/her to “this fessing to fessing to fessing to fessing to fessing to fessing to fess to f

As a result, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in regard to 112 reports.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness C, H and G;

1. List of 112 Reporting Cases (Judgment on the argument of the defendant and his/her defense counsel)

1. As to Article 1 of the Judgment on the Summary of the Claims, although the Defendant had visited the main points of the instant case under the influence of alcohol at the time, there is no fact that the Defendant did not interfere with the duties of the victim, as it did not interfere with the duties of the victim.

As to the provision 2 of the judgment, the defendant is not able to take a bath to the police officer called, or he was able to take a drinking to the face of the police officer by keeping the chest part of the police officer, and rather, the police officer (F) put the defendant first to put him.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2015.11.27 2015고단1501

-광주지방법원 2020.12.02 2020고단4463

-대전지방법원 서산지원 2018.12.19 2018고단897

-광주지방법원 해남지원 2016.02.04 2015고단543

-광주지방법원 2017.04.26 2016고단5809