logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2019.09.27 2019고단1217
공무집행방해
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

At around 01:34 March 6, 2019, the Defendant did not pay to the above taxi article the fee of the cab on which the Defendant was on board in front of the Ulsannam Police Station C District located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do, and did not pay to the above taxi article. Accordingly, the Defendant requested the Gyeong (34 years old) to find the above cab while driving the above cab, and recommended the above D to cover the Defendant who was on the back seat of the above cab and pay the cab fee upon the request, and the said D exceeded the above son’s bath, such as “I Doe, Doe, this son, a police officer will grow dyp, dyp, and hump, a police officer will grow dyp.”

Accordingly, the defendant, who is a police officer, interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the above D civil petition.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. E statements;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 136 (1) of the Selection of Punishment;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is the following: (a) the nature and circumstance of the crime is not good in light of the method and form of the crime; (b) the state’s legal order and the situation at the time of the crime; (c) the establishment of the state’s light order in order to eradicate the light of the public authority, it is necessary to strictly punish the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, such as this case’s order; and (d) the fact that the crime was not taken by the victimized police officer so far, and the possibility of criticism is not small, which is unfavorable to the defendant; (d) the defendant recognizes the crime from the investigative agency, and is against their depth; and (e) the degree of interference with this case’s assault and official duties is not much serious; and (e) the crime was

arrow