(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2020.01.16 2019노1418

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) 서울북부지방법원 2020.01.16 2019노1418

공무집행방해

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The time when a mistake of fact-finding defendant assaultss police officers is not the time when the defendant tried to assault the defendant, but after the police officers prevented the defendant from putting the defendant, they were isolated from the defendant. At the time, police officers did not perform official duties for crime prevention.

Nevertheless, the court below recognized that the defendant committed an assault against the police officers as the defendant tried to assault the defendant and the police officer attempted to commit an assault against the defendant, and the judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The defendant, under the influence of alcohol, wanted to enter the house of his house and go to his house. The defendant's women's her her son-gu and her son-gu talks about the defendant's sexual violence tendency, and requested him to go to the detention room. However, the police officer was forced to take proper measures such as taking protective measures against the defendant and go to the house of his son's son-gu and go to the detention room. The police officer was forced to go to go to the defendant's house against the defendant's will without taking proper measures, and the crime of this case occurred while the defendant spreaded this. The defendant's act constitutes legitimate self-defense against the police officer's illegal performance

C. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly examined by the court below, i.e., “execution of official duties” in the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties do not merely refer to the case where a public official actually performs an act necessary for the performance of his/her duties, but also includes the case where the public official is in a working state for the performance of his/her duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do21537, Mar. 29, 2018), each of the statements made by the victimized police officer E and F, and the statements made by the

참조판례

-대법원 2018. 3. 29. 선고 2017도21537 판결

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2020.08.24 2018노1782

-수원지방법원 2019.05.02 2018노6588

-전주지방법원 2015.07.10 2015노535

-수원지방법원 2020.07.24 2020고단1168

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2013.08.08 2013고단735