2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. From October 11, 2012 to December 12, 2010 of the same day, the Plaintiff: (a) around two hours in 10:10 to 12:00 of the same day; (b) around 2 hours in Saria D points in Ansan-si, Ansan-si; (c) was under the influence of alcohol, and (d) was seated with the out-of-door spacker of the store, and (d) was seated into the store, and (e) was frighted with a camera and the table.

B. Accordingly, although the above store employees requested the plaintiff to return home on several occasions, the plaintiff did not comply with the request only by “the plaintiff was known and known,” and when the customers of the store moved to the place where the plaintiff was damaged, the employees of the store reported to the police to the police and requested the plaintiff to return home.

C. However, the Plaintiff, without complying with the police officer’s request, expressed a great breath of the police officer’s employees and customers, who reported it as follows: “The police officer is the same bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch, how you know the law, what kind of bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch, and how you know the law.”

On October 12, 2012, the police officers arrested the Plaintiff as an offender in the crime of interference with business, etc. under Article 212 of the Criminal Procedure Act. On October 15, 2012, the police officers taken the Plaintiff into custody of the criminal defendant of the Ansan-gu Police Station around October 15, 2012, and detained the Plaintiff in the detention room of the Ansan-gu Police Station on October 15, 2012.

Then, on October 13, 2012, an assistant H belonging to the Ansan Police Station applied for a warrant of detention against the Plaintiff as a result of the crime of interference with business around 14:30 on October 13, 2012, and the public prosecutor I belonging to the Suwon District Public Prosecutor's Office within the Suwon District Public Prosecutor's Office requested a warrant of detention against the Plaintiff around 23:00 on October 13, 2012. However, the court examined the Plaintiff around 15:00 on October 14, 2014, on the ground that " there is a vindication of the suspicion of crime and there is no reason for detention, but there is insufficient reasonableness and necessity of detention in light of all circumstances such as the progress and result of the crime."