(영문) 수원지방법원 안양지원 2014.07.25 2014고단906

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) 수원지방법원 안양지원 2014.07.25 2014고단906

공무집행방해

Text

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

Where a defendant fails to pay a fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

At around 00:10 on June 6, 2014, the Defendant: (a) received 112 reports from police officers E and F belonging to the police station D District Unit, and recommended them to return home to the country with the drinking value during the game that he was called, and (b) took the face one time by hand, and the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers related to the handling of the 112 Report by assaulting the said E, by putting the head debt on his hand, scaming the head debt with his hand, scambling the head at one time with his head on his hand; and (c) assaulting the said E at one time with his head on his hand, thereby obstructing the performance of duties by police officers related to the handling of the 112 Report Report.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of E and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning investigation reports and site photographs;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of a fine for punishment (including the fact that the punishment is against depth, that there is no previous offense of obstruction of performance of official duties, and that there is no past record of criminal punishment except for the punishment imposed once due to a violation of the Automobile Management Act for the last ten years);

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

1. The defendant asserts that the defendant's assertion of the provisional payment order under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act was in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder by stating that he was unable to memory under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case.

In light of the above evidence, although the defendant could recognize the fact that he had taken alcohol at the time of committing the crime, it seems that the defendant did not have or lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions. Thus, the above argument is rejected.

참조조문

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2020.10.21 2020고단3354

-서울남부지방법원 2019.05.17 2019고단60

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.07.22 2020고단3439

-서울남부지방법원 2019.08.21 2019고단2394

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2015.10.15 2015고단1371