logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.01.13 2015고정1465
철도안전법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

No person shall by intimidation interfere with the performance of duties of railroad workers.

Nevertheless, on May 11, 2015, the Defendant, at around 20:30 on May 201, 2015, filed a complaint with the Korean Railroad Employees C, who were engaged in passenger guidance duties, etc. in front of the Dae-gu Office of Active Service, and had been able to escape from the history of the drunk, who was dissatisfied with the measures to remove the drunk from the history.

At this time, the victim railway police officer D, who was dispatched after receiving a report, called "I will help see what she will", and the brub "Crack frack frack frack frack frack frack fracks his fracks over several times by using fracks, and bracks the bracks, and fracks the victim's bridge, and interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of the victim, who is a railroad worker in charge of the duties of maintaining security activities and order within the jurisdiction of the government office under the jurisdiction of the government office under his/her jurisdiction, by assaulting him/her over 10 minutes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

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

1. Violence, photographs of damaged parts, two strings, and tear tears;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing crimes ctv video images cd

1. Article 78 of the relevant Act on Criminal facts, Articles 78 (1) and 49 (2) of the Railroad Safety Act on the Selection of Penalties, and Selection of Fines;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order Act asserted that the defendant's act does not constitute legitimate execution of duty, and that the defendant's act does not constitute legitimate defense.

According to each evidence of the judgment, the defendant is a railroad worker.

arrow