logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.03.30 2019노7027
모욕등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant only passive resistance against the police officers arrested him, but did not see or walk the police officer’s view.

B. In light of the legal principles, there was no need to arrest the Defendant as a flagrant offender in the crime of insult at the time of the arrest of the instant case, as well as that there was no notification of the doctrine of disturbance, the arrest of the Defendant by police officers H, etc. constitutes self-defense to escape from the present unfair infringement.

C. In light of the fact that police officers were responding to excessive punishment in the course of the arrest of unfair sentencing and that the detention was made for a considerable period of time on the date of the sentence of the lower judgment, the sentence of imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) of the lower judgment is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit, since the Defendant was aware of the fact that he saw the police officer H’s appearance and walked with the left party of G by the police officer.

① Police Officers H made a statement that “the Defendant got out of the left side of the bridge and thereafter G was exceeded.” Police Officers G made a statement that “The left side of the bridge goes beyond G, and the Defendant was in the form of attack that was not the body of the general suspect’s refusal.” The above statement is consistent during the investigation process to the court of the lower court, and there is no inconsistency among the statements.

② The video and voice of the CD, in some of the circumstances at the time of the instant case, conforms to the police officer’s statement and G.

③ The Defendant denies the above fact solely on the ground that the breath of assaulting the police officer to the breag was not taken without a drunken memory.

B. M&D.

arrow