logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.10.15 2015고단1206
모욕등
Text

Defendant

A A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3 million, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 600,000.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A

A. On February 12, 2015, the Defendant found a new wall C and 501 at B’s residence, and the Defendant did not comply with B’s request, and thus delivered from the police guards of the D Zone D District Police Station, Seoul Western Police Station, to the outside of the above residence, the Defendant sexually insulting the victim by openly insulting the victim by saying, “Chewing fluor, fluor, fluor, fluor, fluor,” among citizens’ protective care.

B. On February 12, 2015, the Defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender committing the crime described in paragraph (a), and was transferred to the Seoul Western Police Station D district located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F on or around February 12, 2015, the Defendant: “A police officer belonging to the D District shall be deemed to have bit of bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch,” and “a police officer belonging to the D District shall be deemed to have bit bitch bitch bitch bith,” and “a person shall be deemed to have knick G on his/her hand, and both kn

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted police officers to interfere with the legitimate performance of official duties of police officers in relation to the custody of flagrant offenders.

2. Defendant B, under the influence of alcohol around 09:30 on February 12, 2015, performed a bath for about one hour and 40 minutes, including the following: (a) the Defendant found in the criminal department office of the Seoul Western Police Station located at 15-ro, Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul, and walked the entrance and exit of the office several times; and (b) the police officers at the place where the Defendant took a bath for about 1 hour and 40 minutes.

In this respect, the defendant had a very rough speech and behavior in a public office.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police statement of E and G;

1. Each statement of H and I;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendant A: Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties, the choice of fines), and Article 311 (the point of insult and the choice of fines)

(b) Defendant B: Article 3(3)1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (the point of the disturbance of revocation by the government office, the selection of fines);

1. The Criminal Act among concurrent crimes (Defendant A).

arrow