logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.05.14 2015노98
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동폭행)등
Text

All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The police L, when Defendant B arrives at the scene, has a high possibility of notifying the arrest of a flagrant offender at the time when Defendant B arrives, and the police M, when Defendant B, attempted to carry Defendant B on the patrol boat, constitutes obstruction of the performance of official duties. The above M, when Defendant B 2 did sphere and sphere, notified Defendant B of the principle of notification and disturbance that he was arrested as a flagrant offender in the obstruction of official duties, and immediately after that, Defendant A’s act of violence constitutes obstruction of the performance of official duties, since Defendant B was related to lawful arrest of a flagrant offender that was committed separately by Defendant B.

Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Each sentence (Defendant A: a fine of one million won, Defendant B: a fine of one million won) imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts was not at the site when the police L, who arrested Defendant A, Nonindicted G, and E as an offender in the crime of assault, and notified Defendant B of the reason for arrest, the right to appoint a defense counsel, etc., and L used the above G which was on the patrol vehicle later than Defendant B, but did not take a procedure of notifying the gist of the suspected crime, the reason for arrest, and the right to appoint a defense counsel while arresting the above Defendant as an offender in the act of committing the crime. Since M who was called upon upon the request for assistance did not give any notice, he forced the Defendant B to board the patrol vehicle without complying with lawful procedures, it would be an illegal act committed without complying with the procedure.

arrow