logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.02.14 2013노3327
공무집행방해
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the charges was erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and that the punishment (2 million won) is too unreasonable, even if the Defendant was not informed of the right to appoint counsel at the time and place of the judgment of the court below, at the time and place of arrest by G, who is a police officer.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to whether the defendant was notified of the right to appoint a counsel at the time of arrest or not, as stated in the judgment of the court below, the police officer G who was dispatched after receiving the notification of the assault from E at the time and place as stated in the judgment of the court below, clearly stated his status and reasons for the dispatch, and requested the defendant to make a statement as to the circumstances leading to the above assault report, but the defendant continued to have any dispute with the defendant, and the G notified the defendant that he would arrest him as a flagrant offender of the assault case, and the defendant notified the defendant of his right to appoint a counsel, and the defendant immediately announced the defendant of his right to appoint a counsel. The defendant started to take a h's h's h's h's h's h's h's h's h's h's h's h's h's h's h's h's h's h's h'

Next, according to the health stand, according to the evidence of the court below, the defendant's use of violence by the defendant, as stated in the judgment below, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant interfered with the police officer's performance of duties in relation to the arrest of flagrant offenders while performing bathing and assault to G as stated in the judgment below. Thus,

The witness I and C of the court below stated that the defendant did not interfere with the execution of official duties by assaulting G, etc., but they have already been the police.

arrow