logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2020.06.04 2020고합49
퇴거불응등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. The defendant, in response to the withdrawal, was under the influence of alcohol at C convenience stores located in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul, on February 21, 2020, and did not comply with the request of the victim D, but did not leave the convenience store until he is arrested as flagrant offender by the police officer who was dispatched after receiving a report at around 01:04 on the same day and receiving a notification at around 01:04 on the same day, and did not leave the convenience store without good cause until he is arrested as flagrant offender.

The Gu refused to comply with the Gu.

2. At around 02:15 on February 21, 2020, the Defendant injured by special obstruction of performance of official duties, who was arrested in the atmosphere room for the same reasons as described in the preceding paragraph at the Sungnam Police Station in Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-si and the Integrated Investigative Office, and arrested in flagrant offender on the ground of the same reason as described in the preceding paragraph, and was transferred to the atmosphere room, the Defendant: (a) was her mother and Yami (the age of 39) who was a dangerous object for which the Defendant spawned down on the back part of the Defendant’s her back part of the Defendant, and she was spawn in the after part of the Defendant’s body (the length of 15 cm); (b) she was able to see the left part of the F’s upper part of the body, and she was able to see the left part of her body of G (the age of 28 pent), and she was able to see the left part of the Defendant’s body.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous articles and interfered with the legitimate performance of duties of police officers in relation to taking a flagrant offender into custody, thereby causing the injury of police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. The record of seizure of the Defendant’s legal statement F, D, and G by each police officer’s statement, each investigation report on the list of seizures F, police officer F, photographic photographs on G damaged parts, CCTV images-faging photographs on the criminal watch room, and the victim G diagnosis.

arrow