logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.06.22 2017고단646
공무집행방해
Text

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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On January 11, 2017, the Defendant: (a) received a general report to the effect that “I will not get off or get out of a taxi”; and (b) received a request from E (I, 23 years old) to return from a taxi, the police officer assigned to the said police box that arrived at the site after having received a general report to the effect that “I will not get off or get out of the taxi,” but did not get out of the taxi; (c) the above police officer could interfere with the Defendant’s work unless I get off from the taxi.

“A video taken by the Defendant who was seated on the back of the taxi,” and the Defendant, on the ground that the said police officer taken his or her image, made a part of the said police officer’s entrance onto the taxi one time on the ground that he or she was able to do so.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the prevention of police officers' crimes, public peace and maintenance of order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness F and E’s legal statement;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photograph the images;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts, the selection of fines (including the fact that there is no past record of criminal punishment and the degree of exercise of tangible power relatively minor, etc.);

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

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the instant photographing act is unlawful.

According to the above evidence, it can be recognized that the police officer, upon receiving a report from a taxi officer that he did not get a taxi from the taxi, had the passenger pay a taxi fee to the defendant at the site, recommended him to return to the police box, and returned to the police box. In addition, the police officer, upon receiving the same report from the taxi driver at the same time, did not keep the defendant at the request of the defendant. In this case, the police officer taken the defendant's act itself.

arrow