logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2014.08.22 2014고단1809
업무방해등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On May 18, 2014, from around 17:30 on the same day to 18:00 on the same day, the Defendant interfered with the business of the Defendant: (a) under the influence of alcohol at the victim C’s D shop operated by Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, and thereby interfered with the business of the victim by force of the victim, such as: (b) “I ambbling so that I ambling; (c) I ambling it; (d) I ambling it; and (d) I ambling it to the female student who has been a customer in the place; and (e) I ambling it to the employee, “I ambling.” continuously, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s business by force by force of the victim, such as having the customer find the place by entering the buster.

2. At around 18:15, May 18, 2014, the Defendant: (a) took a bath to the said F that “I am home from F of the police box affiliated with the Ulsan Middle Police Station Emba, which was dispatched after receiving a report for the said reason; (b) the Defendant took a bath to the effect that “I am home from F of the police box affiliated with the Ulsan Middle Middle Police Station Emba, which was called out after receiving the report for the said reason; and (c) obstructed the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties concerning the handling of reports by cutting down the chest of the said F in his/her face on his/her hand.”

Accordingly, the Defendant arrested a flagrant offender on the charge of obstruction of performance of official duties, moved to the Ulsan F Police Station Embox, and took a bath to the said F, and took the bath to “sing, sing away,” and her face at one time by hand, and walking a part of the said F once, thereby obstructing the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties concerning the arrest of the flagrant offender.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of reports by police officers and the arrest of flagrant offenders.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to F and G;

1. Article 314 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts and the choice of punishment.

arrow