logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2014.12.12 2014고단6781
공무집행방해
Text

A fine of three million won shall be imposed on a defendant. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be imposed.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

At around 05:20 on July 28, 2014, the Defendant: (a) assaulted D by the Defendant, and received a report of the assault, and used it to find out the pet dog lost to the slope F belonging to the Busan District Edistrict of the Busan District Police Station, which was used by the Defendant; and (b) assaulted the Defendant, by using the door, which was breading the F’s face, with the shoulder f’s left part of the shoulder, at the time of leaving the slope f’s bridge at a two-way level, at a fright, at a hump, with the outer f’s walk, which was f’s slope, and f’s f’s f’s hump, and f’s f’s f’s hump, with a hand, cut off the external f’s humf, and f’s hump.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the duty of reporting and withdrawal.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The statement of the F made by the police officer, and the application of victim Fagic statute to the Fagic;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Selection of fines shall be made by taking into consideration the fact that the crime is a contingent crime under the influence of passing a punishment, the primary crime, the degree of damage inflicted by a police officer who has suffered damage, but the amount shall be determined in consideration of the fact that the police officer has assaulted to perform public duties and the degree of such assault, etc.

1. The Defendant’s assertion as to the Defendant’s assertion under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act is alleged to the effect that the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical disorder by drinking at the time of the instant crime. However, according to the result of the examination of evidence, the Defendant is deemed to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time, but does not seem to have been in a state of

arrow