logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.06.14 2018나101565
손해배상(국)
Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 6, 2014, around 05:00 on September 6, 2014, the Plaintiff 1) was walking along the way in front of the Seo-gu Daejeon District D District of Daejeon Police Station affiliated with the Defendant, which was called for a violence report and withdrawn the lawsuit against the said four co-defendants of the first instance court. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against E, F, G, and H for the instant damages claim against the said E, F, and H, but the first instance court withdrawn the lawsuit against the said four persons.

(2) The Plaintiff, who is walking along the breath while under the influence of alcohol, she flicked and flicked the patrol car, and flicked. The Plaintiff flicked from the police officer, and the Plaintiff flicked against his flick. The Plaintiff flicked flicked flicked flicking flicking flicking flicking flicking flicking flicking flicking flicking flicking flicking flicking flicking flicking flicking flicking flicking flicking flicking flicking flicking flick, and was on the road. (2) The Co-Defendant of the first instance trial attempted to arrest the Plaintiff as a suspect

3) The Plaintiff goes off from his body and her body against the complaint regarding the arrest of the Defendant in the act of committing the crime of this case (i.e., “Ausberk” act)

b) The Plaintiff, on September 6, 2014, was tried to bring a knife the knife on the patrol unit, and protested against it by means of cutting down the knife and cutting down the knife (see, e.g., Evidence A5). B., the relevant criminal trial proceeding against the Plaintiff was conducted on the grounds of the violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act and the suspicion of violation of the Road Traffic Act, with the purport that the Plaintiff obstructed the duties of police officers performing public duties for about 20 minutes, and was

Article 3 (2) 3 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, Article 157 (4) and Article 68 of the Road Traffic Act.

arrow