(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.09.08 2016노3127 | 리걸엔진

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) 수원지방법원 2016.09.08 2016노3127

공무집행방해

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case that the defendant obstructed the execution of duties by assaulting the police officer H's body several times, even though the defendant did not have a fluort the police officer H's body at the time of this case.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court, it can be recognized that the Defendant committed an assault, such as threatening a police officer H’s body as indicated in the instant facts charged, and obstructed the execution of his duties.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

1) The police officer stated at the investigative agency that “the Defendant was able to play a dynamic image to the Defendant, such as taking a large voice at the instant site,” and that “the Defendant continued to take a dynamic image and scambling, even though she was able to do so.” 2) The following situation appears in light of the appearance and situation of the Defendant revealed at the time of the instant case, and the police officer’s above statement was consistent with the aforementioned assault situation stated by the police officer H. In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant’s attitude and situation at the time of the revealed, the above statement made by the police officer H was credibility. (A) The Defendant continued to take a bath to the police officer at the instant site, and continued to take a boom and immediately after the police officer’s body’s appearance, and continued to take a dynamic image regardless of the clothes of the police officer, and the Defendant did not take a dynamic image immediately after the police officer’s body’s body.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2019.07.18 2018노1629

-창원지방법원 2014.10.02 2014노1358

-서울서부지방법원 2019.01.17 2018노879

-청주지방법원 2012.11.08 2012노256

-제주지방법원 2019.05.16 2018고단2173