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

On May 18, 2015, at around 20:20, the Defendant was urged to return home from the victim C, etc., a police official belonging to the Mine Police Zone B district, who was parked in the front of the railway station located in 13-ro, e.g., e., the iron farm at the time of Magsan on May 18, 2015, and was parked in the taxi, and opened a window and listened to the above taxi driver D, etc., the Defendant insulting the victim by fluoring the victim into a bit of bitle, bit of bitle.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Article 311 of the Criminal Act and Article 311 of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the choice of fines;

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

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

1. Determination on the Defendant and defense counsel’s assertion under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act that bear litigation costs

1. The alleged defendant asserts that under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, the defendant was unable to discern things or was incapable of making decisions.

2. According to the aforementioned evidence, even though the Defendant was aware of drinking alcohol at the time of the crime, the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions.

The above assertion cannot be accepted as it seems to be in a state or weak condition.

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