경범죄처벌법위반
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
around 08:30 on February 18, 201, the Defendant is a person subject to a disposition of notice of disposition (number : 2009-3-0000027936) under Article 1 subparag. 24 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act by committing an act of creating uneasiness by committing an abnormal behavior such as taking passengers' growth in the train located in the train located in the area where the discharge area was located in Busan, Busan, the area where the discharge area was located, thereby creating an uneasiness. The Defendant is a person subject to a disposition of penalty of KRW 50,000,00.
G, KTX crew C’s legal statement and G’s written confirmation, which are the evidence corresponding to the facts charged in the instant case, asserted that the admissibility of evidence was taken in the KTX train as evidence.
First of all, the purport of G’s confirmation, C’s statement, and each of the above people’s statements in this court is that, in the KTX special room, a male who sits in the side of G was engaged in an abnormal behavior, such as taking out G from the guest room, and G was explained by the Korean Railroad crew C while reporting the train to C, and C was searched in order to find the male, but not found, it was found that the Defendant was found that there was about 50 minutes from the toilet and that it was consistent with the increase in the description by G, and that G transferred the train inside the railroad.
However, even if the above G, C’s respective legal statements, G’s written statements, and C’s written statements, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that a male who reported abnormal behavior by G and a defendant from a toilet had undergone sufficient verification procedures, such as face-to-face meeting the G and the defendant at the time, to verify whether the defendant from the toilet was the same person.
In addition, G refused to make a statement in the presence of the defendant in this court, and the defendant made a statement in the presence of the defendant. The report on the photograph of the defendant provided by the defendant was also unable to memory the identity of the person and the defendant in the train at the time of this case.