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

On April 21, 2017, the Defendant: (a) reported 112 on the column of revocation in the “C cafeteria” located in B at the Scamb on Apr. 21, 2017; and (b) solicited the victim E, a police box affiliated with the Scamb, who was dispatched to the site after receiving a 112 report on the column of revocation; and (c) had three persons, such as the above restaurant operator F; (d) the Defendant: (e) placed the Defendant “this ring of the police, any scambling of any other person;

D. D. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S.

Accordingly, the defendant openly insultingd the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of police statement protocol to E;

1. Relevant Article 311 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds of Article 334(1) or more of the Criminal Procedure Act.