logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.11.27 2017고단3729
재물손괴등
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 7,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

"2017 Highest 3729"

1. On August 7, 2017, Defendant A: (a) under the influence of alcohol at the “E” restaurant located in Daejeon Central District, Daejeon, Daejeon; (b) Defendant A destroyed that the employees F would bring money from the inner part of the restaurant; and (c) Defendant C d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d

2. Defendant B, upon receiving a report on the date and time set forth in the preceding paragraph, and at the place of disturbance A, arrested Defendant B as a flagrant offender at the Seoul Daejeon Police Station G District Police Station G District Ha, which was called out due to the disturbance of Defendant B, and, in the process of arresting Defendant B as a flagrant offender and giving evidence on the scene as to the damage of property, was urged Defendant B to put the victim’s neck one time with a hand-to-face without any special reason.

Ultimately, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning criminal investigations by victims who are police officials.

Defendant A, on October 30, 2014, was sentenced to three months by the Daejeon District Court for obstruction of business, and was released on January 25, 2015 in the Daejeon Prison on the execution of the sentence.

Defendant

A around 20:00 on September 11, 2017, the victim J (Ha, 66 years of age) located in Daejeon Dong-gu, Daejeon, and caused the victim to receive KRW 1,00,000,000,000,000 borrowed from approximately two months prior to the victim, but the victim rejected the conversation, thereby interfering with the victim’s operation of the restaurant for about 30 minutes on the ground that the victim was locked the restaurant door and rejected the conversation.

Summary of Evidence

"2017 Highest 3729"

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police statement made against H and L;

1. Each investigation report, and photographs at the scene of damage "2017 Highest 3772";

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Statement made by the police to J;

1. On-site photographs;

1. A report on internal investigation:

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report, the current status of acceptance by each individual, the report on the previous conviction of disposition, and the results of inquiry;

1. Defendant A of the pertinent Article of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts: Article 366 of the Criminal Act, the Criminal Act.

arrow