logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2017.02.07 2016고단2106
업무방해
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On November 21, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to one year to imprisonment with prison labor by obstructing the performance of official duties in the Daejeon District Court’s Branch on November 21, 2014, and completed the execution of the sentence in the astronomical Prison on September 20, 2015.

On October 22, 2016, around 21:56, the Defendant: (a) ordered the victim D to “E” restaurant operated by the victim D in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu; (b) ordered the jun and food to take a bath to other customers for drinking without any justifiable reason; and (c) ordered customers to go in the said restaurant.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the operation of the above restaurant for about four hours by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. A written statement;

1. Previous records: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquire about criminal records and investigation reports (attached to the output of the judgment of repeated crime, etc.);

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of punishment for the crime;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes [the scope of recommending punishment] The reason for sentencing under Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes [the scope of recommending punishment] (one month or August) for the mitigation area (including efforts to recover damage), [the person subject to special mitigation] [the decision of sentence] for a repeated crime period, as well as for a repeated crime period (the Daejeon District Court 2016No. 1250 case] for a repeated crime committed during the same crime (the Daejeon District Court 2016 No. 1250 case).

In light of the fact that it is agreed with the victim and it is against the victim, the punishment was determined as per the disposition.

arrow