logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2013.05.16 2013고단537
공무집행방해등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. Around 07:15 on January 26, 2013, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle B in the state of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.229% from the 2km section from the 769-dong, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-do to the front road of the same gate high school.

2. On January 26, 2013, the Defendant received a report that he driven under the influence of alcohol as stated in paragraph (1) at the remote distance intersection in front of the Dong-dong, Chungcheongnam-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do, and was demanded to accompany the Defendant to the zone to the zone for the instant investigation by a slope D belonging to the Ulsannam Police Station C District District D, and a policeman called out.

Accordingly, the Defendant rejected the foregoing D’s demand for accompanying while citing the Defendant’s complaint to “Is the fluor, fluoring,” and assaulting D’s face at one time in drinking, such as plucking, plucking, etc. of the said D’s face at one time.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the handling of the case.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. A written report from an employee of an employer;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the blood alcohol appraisal statement;

1. Relevant laws, Article 148-2 (2) 1 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da1548, Feb. 1, 2009; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da15

1. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act or more (the same circumstances as the above);

arrow