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

On May 20, 2016, around 8:40 on May 20, 2016, the Defendant visited F District Unit by a police officer who was dispatched to the site after receiving a report that the Defendant was unable to have the Defendant’s female-friendly E (here, 28 years old) unable to return home (here, 28 years old).

On May 20, 2016, from around 09:35 to around 09:55 on the same day, the Defendant committed an act of disturbance of revocation by utteringous words and actions, such as utteringous words and actions, which are very rough, such as “Any person who makes a false statement, made a false statement, made a deduction of any woman, made a false statement, made a false statement. I am out of his clothes. I want to file a complaint. I will see that the Defendant will be able to do so. I do not know that it will be wrong.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness H;

1. Investigation report (in the presence of a female victim's statement, investigation, etc.);

1. In case of cancellation of drinking alcohol by government offices, a photo of drinking softs, and a written statement in the circumstances of a person who takes drinking;

1. Application of the investigation report (Analysis of CCTV images) and the Acts and subordinate statutes governing CCTV images in the F District;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 3 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, and Selection of fines for the crime;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order asserted that the defendant visited the F District Unit as stated in the facts charged and resisted the defendant by making a false statement that the police officer visited the F District Unit, and the father's father is in the G District Unit, and there is no disturbance due to the following words and actions.

However, according to the evidence adopted earlier, the police officer called up for E and Si expenses around 08:40 on May 20, 2016 and the police officer called up for E and the defendant wanting to resist and return home from E, and the defendant returned home to E and raised a complaint.