logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.05.02 2016고합533
공무집행방해
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On September 5, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 14:33 September 2016, while driving a motor vehicle on the two-lane road in front of the D cafeteria located in Yangju City, the Defendant was stopped on the right side of the road in accordance with the directions of G, while driving the motor vehicle along the two-lanes other than the designated two-lanes.

The Defendant, on the ground that other buses and truck vehicles controled only one of their own vehicles without regulating them, has the same sound as the police x c.

Other vehicles: Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz.

After having taken a bath as "", in order to move the above G to another place, the said G saw the body of G in accordance with the said G, shouldered with the G, and the G was unable to board the said vehicle by putting the door of the seat over the seat of G with the seat of the heatr in order for him to board the patrol vehicle, and opening the door of the patrol vehicle again.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties by police officers on traffic control.

2. Determination

A. The crime of interference with the performance of official duties is established by assault or intimidation against a public official who performs his/her duties. The assault at this time refers to an act of exercising illegal tangible power against a public official, and intimidation, either directly or indirectly, or not, refers to a notice of all harm and injury that may cause fear to the other party. However, the assault or intimidation is against a public official who performs his/her duties by nature, and it should be likely to interfere with the public official’s performance of duties (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9020, Mar. 16, 2007). If the assault or intimidation in the crime of interference with the performance of official duties is insignificant to the extent that the public official is not opened, it does not constitute assault or intimidation (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do449, Jun. 01, 2007).

arrow