(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.06.20 2019노58

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.06.20 2019노58

공무집행방해등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, this judgment is delivered against Defendant A.

Reasons

1. Grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1’s misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and Defendant A’s failure to recognize the fact that the police officer in charge at the time required a drinking test on June 9, 2018, the police officer did not have the intent of escape, and there was no intention on the obstruction of performance of official duties. G was first required to take a drinking test after safely removing Defendant B from Defendant A, and did not take such measures, and thus, the execution of official duties cannot be deemed lawful. Therefore, the part on the obstruction of performance of official duties against Defendant A in the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mistake of facts or legitimate performance of official duties. 2) The sentence of the court below against Defendant A of unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and eight hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the prosecutor (not guilty part of the judgment in the original trial, mistake of facts), CCTV images, victim I’s statement, etc., Defendant B could sufficiently be recognized, but the court below acquitted Defendant B of this part of the facts charged. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. The prosecutor of the ex officio destruction following the amendment of a bill of indictment filed a prosecution by conspiracy with the Defendants on the charge of obstruction of performance of official duties against the Defendants, and applied for the amendment of a bill of indictment to change this part of the facts charged to the Defendants’ sole charge in the trial at the court below, and the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained as it changed the object of the trial by permitting it.

However, the defendant A's assertion of misunderstanding of facts, misapprehension of legal principles, and prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. The judgment of the court below and this court on Defendant A’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2015.10.01 2015노1188

-창원지방법원 2020.02.12 2019노1874

-서울고등법원 2013.01.15 2012노3300

-대구지방법원 2016.12.14 2016노499

-서울서부지방법원 2013.11.07 2013노685