logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2013.04.25 2012고정1080
공무집행방해
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On June 27, 2012, around 16:13, 2012, the Defendant filed a report with the police officer, by finding at his home, 109, Dongnam-gu C apartment 1402, Dongnam-gu, Dongnam-gu, 109, and 1402.

At around 16:35 on the same day, the defendant was called to be aware of the defective police officers who called to the scene after receiving a report from the front corridor of the entrance of the above place.

Therefore, the police officer committed assaulting the police officer's legitimate performance of official duties by putting him into the house to handle it according to the procedure, putting him in good hand, "I am hacker hacker hacker hacker hacker hacker hacker hacker, cut off on the ground by hand, blacking hacker and blacker hacker for about 2 to 3 minutes, and blacked on the wall so that I am against the left part blacker in the wall.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of damaged parts;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant asserts that the judgment on the defendant's assertion of the provisional payment order under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is based on the fact that there was a police officer's brusium in response to the police officer's assault, and that there was no assault against the police

In light of the following circumstances, witness E and F, which can be recognized by the evidence as seen earlier, are relatively consistent in this court, and the Defendant stated the reason why he exercised the tangible power to E at the time, and according to the damaged part photograph, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties as indicated in the judgment of the lower court.

arrow