logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2010.11.26 2009고단5915
업무방해 등
Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. Summary of the facts charged

1. On April 17, 2009, from around 19:00 to 20:00 of the same day, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by force by avoiding disturbances, i.e., “E” restaurant operated by the Defendant and the victim D, who is the Defendant in Gangnam-gu Seoul, from around Apr. 17, 2009 to around 20:00, on the grounds that the victim was unable to use the credit card used by the Defendant by stopping the credit card.

2. Around 20:00 on April 17, 2009, the Defendant assaulted the victim who walked one time to walk the son F(the age of 47) of the Defendant, who attempted to assist and stop the Defendant, at the above “E restaurant,” and the police officers dispatched after receiving 112 a report.

3. On April 17, 2009, the Defendant engaged in the performance of official duties: (a) on the road in front of the above “E” restaurant; (b) on the G District at the Gangnam Police Station G District, which was called upon 112 reported, arrested the Defendant as a flagrant offender and arrested the Defendant to go to the patrol vehicle; (c) took the face of the said H one time at his head to put the Defendant into the resistance while putting the lower part of the patrol vehicle; and (d) inflict an injury, such as the closure of the bones’s bones, where the number of days of treatment is unknown, by asking the left shoulder of the above H. H.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the arrest of flagrant offenders, and at the same time injured the victim H.

2. The defendant's defense counsel and the defendant's defense counsel and the defendant's defense counsel are the restaurant operated by the defendant, not the victim, and the victim's assault and injury was inflicted in the course of the defendant's resistance to the police officer dispatched by the defendant.

3. Determination

A. As to the obstruction of business, the result of the hearing in this case.

arrow