항공보안법위반
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Punishment of the crime
No passenger on board shall do harm to other persons by verbal abuse, singing loudly singing, etc., drinking alcohol or taking drugs in an airplane in flight.
On November 26, 2015, the Defendant started the LA Airport at around 04:00, and on the same day, was on board the Korean Air Flight D aircraft scheduled to arrive at the Incheon International Airport at around 17:40 on the same day.
At around 05:40 on November 26, 2015, the Defendant sought a continuous request for drinking, such as “I wish to see that the Defendant cannot give more attention to the regulations from the crew after shampoo, shampoo-in 6 remaining shampoo-in in the above aircraft,” and “I see why there are many kinds of shampoo-in aircraft? I see why you can see why you can see, why you can see, why you can see, why you see, what you are you spath, and why you are you spath?” and, despite the prior warning of the crew, I am spath for about one hour in the above aircraft, and spathic action, such as shampoo-in, regardless of the crew’s prior warning.”
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. The witness E, F, G, and H statements (the defendant and his defense counsel did not commit an act of disturbing the identity of the defendant, and even if the defendant was found to have a disturbance in the process of causing disturbance with the crew member, this is caused by the act of attack, such as occupational knowledge, excessive response, and intimidation of the crew member, and thus, the defendant's act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act to oppose it. However, according to each of the above evidence, the defendant can be acknowledged as having committed an act of disturbing the identity of the crew member as stated in the above facts of crime, and in light of the process of the occurrence of the case and the circumstances at the time of the crime of this case, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's act satisfies the requirements of self-defense or legitimate act, and thus the above argument of the defendant and the defense counsel cannot be accepted).