logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.05.12 2016노345
공무집행방해등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal asserted to the effect that “the defendant did not assault E by threatening him or her to put him/her on a sexual organ and a high-ranking part, and the above E shall not be deemed a public official who performs his/her duties after completing the dispatch duty of 112 report,” but the above argument is not included in the grounds for appeal submitted within the submission period for the reasons for appeal. Thus, it is not separately determined on the ground that it is not included in the grounds for appeal.

A. The Defendant had committed the instant crime with mental disorder under the influence of alcohol. B. Sentencing unfair sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment and a fine of 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mental and physical disorder, the defendant is deemed to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, but in light of the background, method, the defendant's statement to the investigation agency, and attitude, etc. acknowledged by the above evidence, it cannot be deemed that the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions, and thus, the above assertion by the defendant cannot be accepted.

B. In full view of all other circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, background and result of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court sentenced the Defendant to the punishment, given that the Defendant committed the instant crime again within the period of repeated crime, even though he was subject to the suspended execution one time of punishment and four times of criminal punishment due to the crime committed during the period of repeated crime, and that the Defendant appears to have continuously known that the ordinary performance of official duties by police officers, such as finding in the global belt and desire to make it difficult for the police officers to perform their duties in a normal manner even before the crime was committed.

arrow