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

On October 31, 2014, from around 22:50 to 23:20, the Defendant arrested and taken custody of the Defendant for the foregoing reasons within the Seo-ro 66 Incheon Western International Urban Area District of Cheongra International Police Station, Seo-ro, Seogu, Incheon, Seoro, Incheon, and then put the police officer under influence of alcohol, and then put him/her a drinking, and then, he/she in a large interest.

(e) gresponding, gresponding;

For 30 minutes, such as the opening of a dog, which is called a police force, scambling or scambling by very rough or disorderly words or conducts.

Summary of Evidence

1. Court statement of the defendant (the second trial date);

1. C’s statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the statement of de facto exploitation;

1. Article 3 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and the selective punishment of minor crimes;

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

1. The dismissal part of the prosecution under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. On October 31, 2014, at around 22:40 on October 31, 2014, the Defendant used alcohol in front of the “E” restaurant in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, and assaulted the victim F (the age of 41) by hand on the ground that the victim F (the age of 41) is provokingd by shaking the Defendant, thereby breaking the victim’s buck at one time and slicking it.

2. The conclusion of the judgment is that a crime falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act.

However, according to the F’s written agreement (e-mail attached to reference materials submitted by the counsel on April 16, 2015), the victim may recognize the fact that the victim has withdrawn his/her wish to punish the Defendant on April 16, 2014, after the prosecution of this case was instituted.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the prosecution of assault among the facts charged in this case is dismissed.