logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2015.08.12 2015고단764
공무집행방해등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, 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. From June 5, 2015 to June 5, 203:20 of the same day, the Defendant interfered with the performance of duties and the damage of property: (a) the victim’s “Fran tavern” operated by the victim E in Jeju, which was operated by the victim E, to the police on the ground that the victim reported the Defendant to the police by inteceptioning the Defendant, and thereby, (b) the police officer dispatched to the victim for the reason that he reported the Defendant to the police by inteception. (c) The Defendant: (a) sound that “Fran tavern partially paid the drinking value,” and (d) the Kabroster table was filled up by the Defendant’s head at two times, with his head, and flap was cut up by two hand; and (b) cut the disturbance, at the same time, the Defendant flater table was cut up by 50,000 won in total of the market price owned by the victim on which the Kabter table table table was placed.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's entertainment business by force and at the same time damaged the victim's property.

2. The Defendant committed violence, such as: (a) the date and time as indicated in the above paragraph (1) above; (b) the head of the Jeju East Police Station G District District G District, which carried a uniform called upon the victim’s report at the place; and (c) the Defendant attempted to arrest a flagrant offender as an act of destruction as described in the above paragraph (1) above, such as: (a) whether he was in contact with the principal; (b) whether he was in contact with the lower female; and (c) whether he was a stop; and (d) whether he was a stop to a stop

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on criminal investigation and maintenance of public order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement of H;

1. Each written statement of E and I;

1. On-site photographs and photographs of damaged police officers;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (Attachment of Criminal Suspect images);

1. Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts, Article 366 of the Criminal Act and Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act concerning the criminal facts;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes Act are with interference with business.

arrow