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

1. The Defendant in violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act is aware of a person who has a high inside the police box located in Yongsan-gu Seoul on February 7, 2020 and “a person who has a high inside the police box”.

Shee, while under the influence of alcohol, she abused the public authority, she saw that “n't have the age,” and she sawd by very rough and visual words and actions at a police box, which is a public office.

2. The Defendant, refusing to withdraw, received a demand from the police box D to leave the victim C police box affiliated with the police box, by leaving the disturbance as described in paragraph 1, at the time, place, and as described in paragraph 1.

However, the defendant did not comply with the request to leave the victim without justifiable reasons until he is arrested in the act of committing the crime on the same day from 08:55 to the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in court E, F, and D's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the police officers of the accused;

1. G statements;

1. The circumstantial records and control manual;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes for the verification of internal investigation reports (abundance of documentary images; CDs); and

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on the Punishment of Minor Offenses, Article 3(3)1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (the point of cancellation of the official order), Article 319(2) and Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of non-compliance with the eviction), the selection of fines;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. In accordance with the reasoning of Article 186(1) main sentence of the Criminal Procedure Act and the statement of the business owner at convenience points for sentencing, the Defendant, who had been under the influence of alcohol at convenience points since 08:26, was deemed to have been suffering from the time when the police officer was able to mention the upper line of the police officer or disclosing the name of the police officer’s official, etc. while taking a camera photograph against the police officer on the part of the police officer, and at the time when the Defendant’s convenience points operation interfered with the Defendant’s convenience points, the police officer treated the Defendant unfairly.

without any material sufficient to see;