logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.09.10 2015고단1715
공무집행방해
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On July 6, 2015, the Defendant stated that, around 13:35, the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Unification, 849, and that, in light park, the victim would not be subject to notification from C (the age of 39) who is in the position of the Eunpyeong Police Station B Zone B (the age of 39) to the violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, the victim’s shoulder is pushed down twice by hand, and the victim’s shoulder is cut down by hand, and the Defendant will not be subject to the imposition of tax, mutatis mutandis.”

As a result, the defendant assaulted police officers, thereby obstructing police officers from performing their official duties on 112 notification processing and notification.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs following a CCTV closure;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 136 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. The reason for the sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., circumstances that are considered as the reason for sentencing) of the suspended sentence [the scope of recommendation] The basic area (f.i.e., the obstruction of performance of official duties) of category 1 (f., June or April) of the obstruction of performance of official duties (f.g., the decision of sentence] [f., the decision of sentence] of the defendant, in light of the fact that there are many criminal offenses committed by the defendant due to violence, and that the crime of this case that obstructs the execution of official duties is not committed in a way that the police officer who wears a uniform without justifiable reason under the influence of alcohol and takes a bath for him/her, and that there is no good reason to commit the crime of this case, but the defendant reflects his/her mistake and has no criminal record of the same kind, and that the degree of the obstruction of official duties

arrow