logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.12.20 2017고단2860
공용물건손상등
Text

1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months;

2.Provided, That the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On August 2, 2017, at around 11:10, the Defendant recommended C to get a taxi in India while putting a taxi on the two-lane of the two-lane road between the 1st intersection of Maposan, Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, the border of the Seoul Mapo Police Station B, which was under patrol, during the patrol, around August 2, 2017, and the Defendant “don-don-don-don-do kn-kicked-kicked-kicked-kick-kick-kick

Chewing typing. The Defendant assaulted the Defendant, such as her body, tightly pushing the body of the said C with his hand, and walking the part of the said C, which was to arrest a flagrant offender interfering with the performance of official duties.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the duty of maintaining public order.

2. At the same time and place as Paragraph 1, the Defendant, who was arrested as a current offender interfering with the performance of official duties and boarded on the patrol vehicle, damaged public goods so that the repair cost amounting to KRW 220,000,000.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Investigation report (to hear statements by sphos telephone);

1. Investigation report (Analysis of cellphone images);

1. The Defendant’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of the specification of transaction did not partially memory under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime.

The records of this case show that the defendant had drinking alcohol at the time of the crime, but it does not seem that the defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions. Thus, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties), Article 141(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of damaging goods for public use) and the choice of imprisonment for each crime;

2. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38(1)2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, and the proviso of Article 42 of the Act on the Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes.

arrow