(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.07.20 2016노1411 | 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) 서울고등법원 2016.07.20 2016노1411

특수공무집행방해치상등

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s mistake of fact (a.e., damage to public goods) did not shock the patrol car as stated in the facts charged, and rather, the patrol car was damaged by the Defendant’s shock of the car.

Such conflict situation was a general traffic accident.

For home, it is reasonable to regard the method of shock as the patrol car rather than the car of the defendant.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the damage of public goods among the facts charged in the instant case.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is proved that the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest, etc. of a fine, public official E who is a police officer, using a passenger car, which is a dangerous object, as stated in the facts charged, and thereby, suffered the instant injury to E.

Nevertheless, it is not proved that E suffered the injury of this case due to interference with the execution of official duties, such as the defendant's facts charged.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in finding facts.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant is too uncomfortable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. In the lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s assertion (a point of damage to goods for public use) also asserted similar to the grounds for appeal, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the following grounds: (i) detailed circumstances, etc. in the conduct from 14th to 20th of the judgment.

In full view of the circumstances duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the following circumstances, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the facts as pointed out by the Defendant.

(i)..

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2016.06.10 2016노206

-서울북부지방법원 2017.06.15 2017노371

-서울동부지방법원 2021.01.22 2020노1395

-울산지방법원 2017.05.11 2017노243

-서울고등법원 2017.05.11 2017노798