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

1. Around November 23:10, 2017, the Defendant violated the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act: (a) stated that, while under the influence of alcohol at the contact zone of the Seoul Western Police Station located in Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul, Seoul, the Defendant did not debris the Defendant’s seat who was arrested as a flagrant offender for an assault case on the ground that he did not debris the Defendant’s seat. (b) stated that the Defendant was “Korea-type grass pool issued, this time signal issued, I am impe.”; (c) led to sound; and (d) avoided the disturbance for about 15 minutes, including a set of the entrance of the said district unit.

Accordingly, the defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, forced or scamed by very rough words and conducts at government offices.

2. The Defendant damaged public goods at the same time and at the same place as described in the above paragraph 1, destroyed by a fluor of an environmental U.S. dollars in which the market price cannot be known at the entrance of the said district.

Accordingly, the Defendant damaged the goods used by public offices.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the fire extinguishing photographs damaged;

1. Relevant provisions of the Punishment Act concerning the facts constituting the crime, Article 3(3)1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (the point of disturbance for revocation in the official document), Article 141(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of disturbance for damage in the official document), and the selection of fines, respectively;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the same Act (to the extent that the amount is aggregated) shall be aggravated for concurrent crimes;

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

1. The punishment shall be imposed in consideration of the fact that the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is erroneous, and the damage to public goods is relatively insignificant, etc.