logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2015.07.16 2015고정142
공무집행방해
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

At around 20:00 on November 5, 2014, the Defendant assaulted F on the road of the “Daehan-gu Council member,” which was used by the Defendant under the influence of alcohol, thereby hindering the Defendant from performing his duty of reporting by police officers, maintaining public security and maintaining order, by assaulting F on the road of the 112 report that the Defendant was used under the influence of alcohol, such as “I have the honor of the police officers, I have my own eye, I have my own eye, and I have my own eye, and “I have my own eye, I have my own eye, I have my own eye, and you are the police,” and thereby, assaulting F, such as the following: (a) the handling of police officers’ reporting and handling of police officers; and (b) the maintenance of public peace and order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of the witness F’s statutory statement Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel on the claim of mental disability under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order asserted that the defendant was in a state of mental disability at the time of the crime, since the police officer, who was under the influence of alcohol, breathly interesting the defendant, committed the crime in this case.

The record reveals that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, but in full view of all the circumstances, including the background of the crime, the content and mode of the crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, etc., it does not seem that the Defendant did not seem to have weak the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime.

Therefore, the above argument is not accepted.

arrow