(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.04.17 2014고단6470

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) 대구지방법원 2015.04.17 2014고단6470

공무집행방해

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On December 3, 2014, the Defendant reported on December 3, 2014, in the vicinity of the access road to the cafeteria “D” cafeteria located in Daegu Suwon-gu, and confirmed that there was no hindrance to traffic due to parked vehicles by the slope F belonging to the Daegu Suwon Police Station E zone, which was called up after receiving a 112 report by the Defendant that the parked vehicles interfered with traffic, and then left the cigarette butts on the street.

Although the Defendant demanded a slope F to produce identification card to the Defendant on suspicion of violation of ordinary crimes, the Defendant refused to comply with this request, and attempted to enter the restaurant, and the Defendant interfered with this request, and the Defendant used the F as “the police officer is tightly,” and used the F to see the side of the F on the right bridge of the math in which the mathroid was pushed off.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of the case by the assistant F, a police officer.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness F and G;

1. A written statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes related to work logs in the E District, copies of public official identification cards, Defendant's cirrology-related photographs;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant and his defense counsel had no intention to interfere with the performance of official duties on the ground that the defendant's defense counsel could not attend the defense due to multi-ururology, making it inevitable for the defendant to have the police officer attend the defense.

According to the records, even though the defendant was found to have undergone urology tests, there is no evidence to prove that he was suffering from urology, and even if the defendant was suffering from urology, it does not seem that the symptoms were serious enough to control urine urology at all.

A defendant, as alleged by the defendant or his defense counsel.

참조조문

-형법 제136조 제1항

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2018.08.24 2018고단2428

-대구지방법원 2015.02.06 2014고단5099

-울산지방법원 2018.08.16 2018고정542

-전주지방법원 2014.02.06 2013고단2527

-제주지방법원 2015.11.04 2015고단1357