logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2019.08.14 2018고단3879
공무집행방해등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On October 18, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for the obstruction of performance of official duties, etc. at the Gwangju District Court, which became final and conclusive on October 26, 2018.

1. On August 7, 2018, from around 03:00 to 04:00 on the same day, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by avoiding disturbance by bringing the disturbance to the victim within the “D frequency” operated by the victim C in Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, thereby obstructing the victim’s restaurant business by force.

2. On August 7, 2018, the Defendant committed assault, such as, on the ground that, around 04:20 on August 7, 2018, the police officer E was sent to the scene by the police officer E, who was dispatched to the scene after receiving a report from Yongsan-gu Seoul, and was sent out of the scene, the police officer affiliated with the Seoul Yongsan-gu Police Station Fabab, which was called “I am on the day he was removed”, “I am on the day he was removed,” and that I am walking the left side bridge of the police officer E two times

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of the above E concerning the 112 Report Processing Work.

3. On the same day, the Defendant arrested a flagrant offender on the grounds of the foregoing paragraphs 1 and 2 and transferred the F police box to the F police box on the same day, and assaulted the face of G of the police officer of the Seoul Yongsan Police Station, who was apprehended to take away the Defendant from the right hand to escape the disturbance, such as taking the police officer in the F police box inside the F police box, at around 04:56 on the same day.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of the above G on the arrest and new illness management of flagrant offenders.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of E and G;

1. Each statement of C and H;

1. Investigation report (H telephone conversations of a shote);

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Criminal records, summary of case agreement assistance, application of court rulings and other statutes;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with labor, respectively.

arrow