Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

On May 28, 2017, at a restaurant located in Kimhae-si B around 06:03 on May 28, 2017, the Defendant: “Around 06:03, a certain person fright to drink alcohol” was voluntarily accompanied to the C district located in Kimhae-si E on the ground of assault concerns and the protection of a person in charge of drinking alcohol, etc., who was dispatched after receiving 112 reports.

The defendant was requested from 06:15 to 06:45 of the same day to return home from the police officer D, etc. in the above global belt, and under the influence of alcohol, the police officers such as the above D had induced the opening of the house to return home from the police officer D, etc.

“A bitchch fluor, fluor, fluor,”

“I”, “I” whether you are sent on commission.

깜 빵 보내든가,

The police bomers were aware of their widths, “D, police bomers, bomers, etc., who lost their lives,” and sounded.

Accordingly, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol at the government offices, imprisoned or slicked the horses and actions for about 30 minutes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (Attachment of photograph of suspect A for the crime);

1. Article 3 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (Optional to the punishment) concerning the crime concerned;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is as follows: (a) the Defendant was able to bring a disturbance against police officers at a police station district group; and (b) thus, the nature of the offense is not good in light of the details and methods thereof.

In particular, even before about one month, the defendant committed a second offense without being aware of the fact that he was investigated by committing the same crime at the same place.

However, the defendant reflects his fault in depth.

It seems that a person has lost self-defense while under the influence of alcohol and has committed contingent crimes.

There is still an aspect of this case in the state that the age has yet to be old, personal, and has not been completely mature, and high school.