(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.06.18 2014고단5872

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.06.18 2014고단5872

공무집행방해등

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. Around September 11, 2014, the Defendant insultingd the victim C by openly insulting the victim, stating, “I am hye, hye, hye, hye, hye, hye, hye, hye, hye, hye, hye, hye, hye, hye, hyehye, hyeh, hyehye, hyeh.”

2. The Defendant insultd the victim D by asking the Defendant’s personal information to the victim D, who was called up after receiving a report at the time and place specified in the above Paragraph 1, and 112 at the Edistrict, and asking the Defendant’s personal information, thereby insulting the victim as the victim’s “Isk, chrop, chrop, and chrogate.”

3. The Defendant committed an assault by asking the above F’s arms at hand when and at the time and place as stated in the above Paragraph (1) above, the circumstance F belonging to the E District would restrain the Defendant from attempting to flee.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning 112 report handling duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Each legal statement of witness C, D, and F;

1. Each police statement of C, F, and D;

1. Determination as to each of the defendants' arguments

1. The Defendant asserts to the effect that D did not take a bath or assault F. However, according to the consistent statements made by the witness C, D, and F, the Defendant is sufficiently recognized as having obstructed the performance of official duties by openly insulting the victim patrolmen like the above criminal facts, and by assaulting the security F.

Therefore, the above argument cannot be accepted.

2. In addition, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the F requires the F to produce a police identification card, but not only refused it, but also did not notify the Defendant of the non-satisfy principle while arresting the Defendant as a flagrant offender, and that the arrest is illegal as an illegal arrest, and thus, does not constitute an obstruction

The above adopted evidence.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2012.10.05 2012고단1963

-부산지방법원 2013.02.14 2012고단5206

-의정부지방법원 2014.07.14 2014고단1536

-창원지방법원 통영지원 2014.02.20 2013고정737

-대전지방법원 2015.07.08 2015고단340