logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.08.11 2019고단6098
폭행등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On September 22, 2019, the Defendant assaulted the victim on the ground that the victim C (here, 43 years of age) demanded the death of contact accidents at the entrance of the Daegu-gu B market, Daegu-gu B market on September 13:2, 2019, on the ground that he/she demanded the death of contact accidents, he/she was in possession of “the victim hacks the victim by a mountain, hacking the victim’s head, hacking the victim’s head, and walking the part of his/her mouth on several occasions.

2. The Defendant committed assault, at the same date and time as in the preceding paragraph of the obstruction of performance of official duties, and at the location of the Daegu East Police Station D District D District E, dispatched after receiving the report of traffic accidents by C, that the Defendant “I would be asked if I would be asked if I would be asked if I am fried,” and that I would like to “I fri fri fri fri fri fri fri fri fri fri fri fri fri fri fri fri fri fri fri fri fri fri fri fri fri fri fri fri f fri fri fri fri fri fri fri fri fri fri f

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the protection of police officers' lives, bodies, and property, prevention, suppression, and investigation of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness C and E;

1. Each police statement of C and E;

1. Work force for the D District Armed Forces (the defendant did not assault the victim, and there is no fact that he assaulted the police officer. However, according to each of the above evidence, the defendant's act of assaulting the victim as stated in the facts of crime, and sufficiently recognizes the facts that interfered with the performance of official duties by assaulting the police officer as stated in the judgment below.)

1. Relevant Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively, for the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the punishment of the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act is more severe obstruction of performance of official duties.

arrow