logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.07.19 2018고단1743
업무방해등
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months and by imprisonment for six months.

However, this decision is delivered to the Defendants.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendants

A. On April 22, 2018, the Defendants: (a) conspired on April 22, 2018, on the grounds that: (b) around the first floor E restaurant of D building A in Jung-gu, Seoul; and (c) the Defendant B expressed the victim F “to open” intent to “to do so; (d) threatened the victim F; (e) the Defendant A was in the ground by blocking the burial in the first floor; and (e) caused the disturbance with a string that contains cleaning goods.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired and interfered with the cleaning work of the victim F by force between about 10 minutes.

B. Defendant A was in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint assault) on April 22, 2018, on the grounds that she prevented the victim G (25 years of age) who is a commercial security guard at the same place as before around 23:20 on April 22, 2018, on the ground that she prevented himself/herself, he/she was in his/her possession, thereby keeping the victim G’s body and having flabbbing.

Defendant

B The injured party G was flicked with Defendant A’s ppuri, and flicked the victim’s flick, and flicked once.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly assaulted the victim.

2. The Defendant interfered with Defendant B’s performance of official duties at the same place as before and after April 22, 2018, at the same time as before and after receiving a 112 report on the said disturbance, carried out a police officer of the Seoul Southern Police Station, who was called out after receiving a 112 report on the said disturbance, with the defect that H attempted to arrest A as a current criminal.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police statement made with respect to G and H;

1. Each statement of F, I, and J;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and the choice of punishment for the crime;

A. Defendant A: Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing duties), Article 2(2)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 260(1) (the point of joint assault) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act, and each choice of imprisonment with labor

B. Defendant B: Article 314(1) (a) of the Criminal Act and violence, etc.

arrow