logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2018.08.09 2014노716
특수공무집행방해등
Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

① In relation to the violation of the River Act and the violation of the Road Act, the establishment of a tent, etc. by a prosecutor of the Korean War constitutes a justifiable act to monitor environmental pollution, and the prosecution against the implementer of the DD Corporation who violated the River Act and the Road Act constitutes an abuse of the right of prosecution as an obvious discriminatory indictment.

② With respect to interference with the performance of special duties, the administrative vicarious execution of this case by the Corporation is based on the illegal and administrative disposition without setting a reasonable time limit for performing the duty to remove the unmanned act without setting a time limit for performing the duty to remove the alternative act, and on the basis of the administrative vicarious execution of this case, “if it is deemed that the failure to perform the duty to remove the alternative act is seriously detrimental to the public interest,” the application for permission to occupy and use a river is also abused or abused without accepting it, and it does not constitute legitimate performance of duties, and the defendant of the Republic of Korea War, in collusion with other persons at the time of the administrative vicarious execution of this case, did not assault

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor 1) In fact-misunderstanding or misunderstanding of legal principles (the acquitted portion of the judgment of the court below) investigation report (the analysis of documentary evidence after January 2, 2013) and the photograph taken out documentary evidence each, are admissible as evidence derived from a copy of the original video file recording the field situation at the time of the Defendant’s crime interfering with each of the instant duties. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

arrow