logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.05.10 2017고정387
철도안전법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

No person shall interfere with the performance of duties of railroad workers due to violence or intimidation.

On September 25, 2016, at the platform 12, located at the center of Daejeon-dong, Daejeon-ro, 215 on September 25, 2016, the Defendant was demanded from C (45 tax) of the Police Station B to move passengers to the waiting room of the train due to the act of revocation of the week inside the train. “I want to start up bit bit bit bit bit bit bit bit bit bit bit bit xch.”

“Abrupted, flaged, flaged, flaged, flaged, flaged, flaged, flaged, flaged, and flaged from police officers D(41) who were next to the flag, “Neman, flag,” and flaged, flaged, flaged the said D’s item at one time with a bad hand, and flaged the flag, thereby hindering the performance of duties of railroad workers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement made with respect to C and D;

1. A E statement and a document evidencing the F;

1. Police investigation report (cases of denial of suspect's refusal, cases of telephone conversations between train crew members and large-scale discharged service crew members, cases of submitting CCTV images on the platform of discharge from active service, and cases of investigation into the direction of inspection);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs damaged C by railroad police officers, and uniforms and photographs of D by railroad police officers;

1. Article 78 (1) and Article 49 (2) of the Railroad Safety Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant asserts to the effect that it is unfair to pay the instant fine as it had already been paid as it did not assault the victims as stated in the facts constituting a crime, on the part of the Defendant’s hand who did not err by the railroad police officers, but did not assault the victims, such as the statement of facts constituting a crime.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the defendant's person.

arrow