When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

On January 17, 2018, from around 15:00 to around 16:10, the Defendant: (a) expressed that the Defendant was dissatisfied with the Defendant’s order of revocation at the said police box on August 17, 2017; and (b) expressed the police officer, who was under the influence of alcohol, expressed that he was dissatisfied with the order of revocation of the police box at the above police box, and expressed the Defendant’s desire to “Is and scopic typ typ gue,” and broken the Defendant’s scopic scopic scopty, scop the scopic scopher, and broken the Defendant’s disease on the bottom

Accordingly, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, conveyed or scamed by very rough words and conducts at a police box that is a public office.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. E statements;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on the Punishment of Minor Offenses, and Article 3 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, and Selection of fines;

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

1. The defendant's defense counsel for the reason of sentencing under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act alleged to the effect that it is reasonable to render a judgment of exemption from punishment under Article 5 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act against the defendant on the grounds of family relations, etc. However, the defendant's criminal records (such as the previous records), the nature of the crime in this case, the motive of the crime in this case (the defendant committed the crime in this case on the grounds of complaint against the previous fine) and the motive of the crime in this case (the defendant committed the crime in this case on the grounds of objection against the previous fine) and the form of the crime in this case

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.