logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 평택지원 2017.09.13 2017고단1055
공무집행방해등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[criminal records] The Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment with labor for a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group deadly weapon, etc.) in the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court on August 7, 2012 and completed the execution of the sentence in the Daejeon Prison on June 1, 2015.

[Criminal facts]

1. The Defendant assaulted the victim, on May 20, 2017, on the ground that the victim E (55 years old) 211 of the D Hospital D Hospital in Pyeongtaek-si C takes a bath by telephone prior to this example, on the ground that the victim’s brea was boomed, he blicked down several times, and blicked the victim’s face with left hand.

2. 공무집행 방해 피고인은 2017. 5. 20. 00:30 경 위 D 병원 정문 앞 주차장에서 제 1 항 범행 관련 112 신고를 받고 출동한 F 파출소 소속 경찰 관인 피해자 경장 G(32 세) 이 피고인이 위 E을 폭행하려는 것을 제지하자 갑자기 “ 개새끼야, 짭쌔 넌 빠져. 네 가 뭔 데 끼어드냐.

In doing so, the brue theory, “Choe .....” used a brupt bomb, and assaulted the victim by cutting down the breath of the victim’s balle, bruing the body in front and rear, and pushing down the body.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E, G and H;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Each statement of E and H;

1. Each photograph;

1. Previous conviction: The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that he did not use violence to G, such as a reply to inquiry, investigation report (the date of release), personal acceptance [the defendant and his defense counsel merely did a dispute with the above E at the time of this case, and expressed that he did not use force to G, which is a police official, by taking a bath about G, and salkebbbbbbing, etc. However, in full view of each of the above evidence, the above argument is not accepted since each of the above facts constituting a crime is sufficiently proven.

1. Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of violence) and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties) of the relevant Act;

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes;

1. Aggravation concurrent crimes;

arrow