logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 해남지원 2018.04.26 2017고단492
공무집행방해
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, from around 08:30 on September 18, 2017 to around 10:17 on the same day, in the general affairs department, environmental department office, and E of the D office located in the Donnam-do for about two hours in the Republic of Korea, to the public officials belonging to the D office in the name of 30, including F, public officials belonging to the environmental department of the above D office, who are dealing with administrative affairs in the said place, without any particular reason, and to the public officials belonging to the D office in the name of 30, including F, who are public officials belonging to the F, etc. of the above D office,

A. L. L. L. L. L.C.

Vaz Doz.

C. Carbres

fin fins fins fin

“Intimidating”.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of public officials belonging to the D Office.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness F and G;

1. One copy of photograph [The defendant denied the fact that he threatened public officials as stated in the judgment, but according to the evidence of the above witness's testimony and other evidence, it is recognized that the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties by threatening public officials of the D office as stated in the judgment].

1. Article 136 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act was due to the Defendant’s intimidation and disturbance, and the official’s legitimate execution of his duties was obstructed for a long time.

In this court, the defendant does not reflect the wrongness.

However, the extent of intimidation by the defendant is not obvious.

The Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime by interesting in the process of filing a civil petition with D office.

The defendant is aged and has no record of crime.

D Public Officials F of the D Office appeared as a witness in this Court and stated that the Defendant’s wife is the first place.

In addition, this case's age, sex, environment, circumstances after the crime, etc.

arrow