logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.24 2017노3076
공무집행방해
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) ① there was no assault or intimidation against H who is a public official in charge of parking control, and ② even if there was assault or intimidation, H did not comply with the Seoul Metropolitan Government traffic guidance performance manual, such as indicating the position and status at the time of performing the duty of regulating parking at the time of the instant case and performed illegal performance of official duties, and thus there is no room for interference with the execution of official duties under the premise that it is legitimate performance of official duties. ③ In addition, the instant case was generated after the completion of the duty of regulating H’s parking, and thus it is not possible to interfere with the performance of official duties. Thus, the lower court which convicted the instant charges

2. Determination

A. We first examine whether the defendant was assaulted or threatened.

The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and this court, i.e., ① H consistently stated in the investigation agency and the court of the court below to the effect that “a defendant sale the defendant’s desire, salves his body, salves his body, salves his identification card, and salves his public official identification card,” ② witness I made a statement in the court of the court below to the effect that “I reported 112 to the effect that “at the time when salves come into salves, salves, and reported 112, salves,” ③ according to the CD video, the defendant’s act of assault or intimidation against H who is a public official regulating parking.”

B. Next, we examine whether H violated the performance of official duties.

According to the above evidence, D, who is the defendant's seat, has parked FW car on the road mixed before Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E at the time of this case and maintained it.

arrow