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

1. On June 7, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 21:00, the Defendant: (b) directed the wife south of the Republic of Korea, who works in front of the Cmate underground floor “D” store located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul, Seoul, that he would be able to get loans to the wife south; (c) but was able to do so on the ground that he would refuse it; and (d) obstructed the marina business managed by the victim E (28 years old); (c) the Defendant, who is a security personnel to restrain it, committed the disturbance, such as passing the disturbance, i.e., the knife, the knife, the knife, the knife, the knife knife, the knife knife.).

2. In view of the victim G (the 55 years old), who is a police officer belonging to the F District Department of the Yangcheon Police Station, who was reported as the above circumstances at the same time and place, and the victim H (the 47 years old), who is a security personnel, the Defendant publicly insultingd the victims by openly brupting the victim by using a large bitch flap, nitroe, flue, flue, flue, fluor, fluor, etc., which is the security personnel.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement of G and H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of E;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 311 of the Criminal Act, Article 311 of the Criminal Act, and the selection of fines for the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The defendant's assertion of Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the provisional payment order is asserted to the effect that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder by drinking under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case.

In light of the background, method, and circumstances after the crime of this case, even though the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case, it is deemed that the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime.