(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.09.21 2017고단5384

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) 인천지방법원 2017.09.21 2017고단5384

공무집행방해

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On June 19, 2017, at around 03:03, the Defendant received a report on 112 that “on the right side of the sand market located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, 276, 45, a sand market, “on the right side of the 45-ro, a person who did not pay money from a taxi,” and sought payment of taxi expenses and returning to the taxi from the Gyeong-dong Police Station C, Seoul, which was called out, the Defendant d’s bath and assaulted D on the ground that the horse is not in mind.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the Suspension of Execution [Scope of Recommendation] : In the case where the degree of interference with the execution of official duties is minor (one month to eight months) in the mitigated area (i.e., assault, intimidation, deceptive scheme, or obstruction of official duties (i.e., a special mitigated person) / [decision of sentence] the crime of interference with the execution of official duties needs to be strictly punished for the crime detrimental to the State’s function by nullifying legitimate exercise of public authority. Although the defendant was punished for the crime of damaging public goods before, the defendant was punished for the crime of damaging public goods. However, the defendant was punished for the crime of this case while he was committed the crime of this case, the defendant was committed in depth while he was committed the crime of this case, the fact that he did not have any criminal record like the defendant is considered as favorable to the defendant, and the judgment is made in consideration of all the sentencing factors expressed in the argument of this case such as the defendant’s age, sex, environment

참조조문

-형법 제62조 제1항

-형법 제136조 제1항

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2017.06.08 2017고단2575

-인천지방법원 2018.04.12 2017고단9157

-인천지방법원 2017.10.12 2017고단6190

-인천지방법원 2017.12.13 2017고단7999

-인천지방법원 2017.04.27 2017고단524