logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2013.07.25 2013노278
공무집행방해등
Text

All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of facts-finding, the court below acquitted the victim D, who is a police officer, of this part of the facts charged, although the defendant could be found to have inflicted injury on the victim D, such as impairment of the reputation of face, etc.

B. Although the defendant found the public service center of the police station in order to find the lost error of the defendant at the time, the defendant did not interfere with the performance of official duties by assaulting the police officer, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties in relation to the above D's guard, portrait and protective care, considering the defendant's desire to the police officer D who had been under guard duty at the time and place of the judgment. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion

A. “Bodily injury” under Article 257 of the Criminal Act refers to injury to the completeness of the victim’s body or interference with physiological functions. Annoyinger, which is extremely difficult to be assessed as “injury” under Article 257 of the Criminal Act, is not a crime of injury in a case where it is difficult to deem that the health condition was infringed due to the lack of medical treatment as a superior situation (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10305, May 26, 201). In other words, the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, which are, after D’s assaulted by the Defendant, at the X-ray test conducted at a hospital.

arrow