logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.10.30 2014고단6120
업무방해
Text

[Defendant A] A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,200,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendants are drivers, and they are employees, respectively.

1. Defendant A’s interference with Defendant A’s duties on July 13, 2014, 01:35, the “F” restaurant located in Gyeyang-gu Incheon, Gyeyang-gu, Incheon, for the purpose of disputeing with the pro-Japanese G and Si reserve, Defendant A’s interference with Defendant A’s duties refers to the victim H, who is a restaurant proprietor holding the restaurant in excess of the simple table of the restaurant and holding it prohibited.”

50 50 60 60 60 202

(h) the same year;

Here, the person who will be unable to carry out funeral services

Defendant B and Defendant C interfered with the operation of the restaurant of the victim by force, such as leaving the customers drinking alcohol at the place of business by taking advantage of their fluorous desire, etc. On July 13, 2014, the Defendants of the obstruction of performance of official duties by Defendant B and Defendant C, a police officer, etc. who was a police officer of the Incheon Gyeyang-gu Police Station I Station, dispatched after receiving the report of the above case 112 on the street in front of the above “F” restaurant at around 01:45 on July 13, 2014, attempted to 3 parts of the above J in the process of stopping the said fluor, on the grounds that Defendant B and the police officer, etc., who was a police officer of the Incheon Gyeyang-gu Police Station, sent out after receiving the report of the above case 112, followed the above fluor, Defendant B expressed his desire to “the fluort the police fluort of the police fluor.”

"In doing so, he was fluoring the shoulder of the above J and fluoring it once by hand."

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired and interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement of the police statement to J;

1. Each statement K and L;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (including site situations, addition, ctv video photographs);

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act; Defendant A who choose a fine; Defendant B and C with regard to the crime; and

arrow