logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2020.07.22 2020고단687
공무집행방해
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On January 9, 2020, at the entrance of 00:25, the Defendant assaulted the police officer's legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of 112 reports on the following: (a) at the entrance of the B apartment at the Hanam-si, Gyeonggi-do, with the notification of 112 that he does not get off from the taxi; and (b) the right bridge of the security guards belonging to the Hanam Police Station C District (50 years of age) who called up one time to walk at his own seat.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written statement prepared by the police officer E in relation to D;

1. Application of the investigation report (verification of the person in charge of the investigation), photographs of the damaged parts, investigation reports (booms), black stuffs image images, and the Acts and subordinate statutes governing black stuffs and video CDs

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of fines, and the choice of fines;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order (the defendant and his defense counsel acknowledged the fact that the defendant walked at the right bridge of the latitude D (50 years old), but it does not constitute the degree of obstruction of the performance of official duties as a minor. In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties as provided in Article 136 of the Criminal Act is established when the defendant assaulted or threatened the public official performing his duties, and the assault here is sufficient to exercise the force against the person, and it does not necessarily have to be against the person's body, and it does not require specific interference with the performance of duties as an abstract dangerous crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 205Do6725, Oct. 28, 2005; 2017Do21537, Mar. 29, 2018).

arrow