Where a defendant fails to pay a fine, one hundred thousand won shall be the day.

1. On August 4, 2018, the Defendant: (a) visited a private taxi driver and the victim D (Nam, 49 years old), a police officer, around the Seoul Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Police Station C District District, located in Gangseo-gu, Seoul, for the purpose of refusing to take passengers; (b) explained that he/she would not have to go home in Incheon, and subsequently use his/her home; (c) but (d) issued a warning that he/she would be subject to punishment for the victim’s continuously avoiding disturbance by denying the disturbance while refusing to return home; and (d) given the victim’s warning that he/she would be subject to punishment for the victim’s disturbance, i.e., “c., f., f., bitch f., bitch bitch.”

2. The Defendant violated the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act from around 10:15 on August 4, 2018 to around 10:25 on the same day, on a very rough and disorderly basis, with very rough words and behavior, for about 10 minutes in the state of drinking in the said C District from around 10:15 to around 10:25 on the same day, and committed an act of disturbance of drinking at the above C District as a government office.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. The circumstantial statement of the offender;

1. Application of video Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 311 of the Criminal Act, Article 311 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, Article 3 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, and the selection of fines, respectively;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (to the extent that the maximum amount of the crimes of the above two crimes is aggregated);

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. As to the insult of a police officer, the victim, who is a police officer, has expressed a abusive opinion as stated in the judgment, but is not recognized as a performance.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the place where the defendant took the same bath as the written judgment is open to the public in front of the earth, and the general public at the time when the defendant takes a bath.