The main issue of the instant case is whether the Defendant smokes in the “Ammunity Control”.

There is a self-written report on the facts charged in this case and a legal statement of C, the control police officer, as a major evidence.

The written report on the self-recoveration of the crime prepared by C states that the defendant committed a violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act by smoking in the coal disease control, non-smoking area, such as the charges, and it also consists of the defendant's signature.

However, under the circumstance that the crackdownd fact itself does not fit and creative, the Defendant: (a) signed a group of written confirmations and filed an objection if C, who is a police officer, wants to challenge the crackdown; and (b) signed only the confirmation without reading the content of the written report on the criminal facts.

The defendant asserted that there was no tobacco smoking in the coal disease control at the time, and that there was no tobacco smoking at a place less than 150 meters away from the coal disease control, and that there was no difference in the control content as to whether the tobacco was controlled as a non-smoking area as stated in the detailed self-declaration report.

The argument is asserted.

C There was no case where a person who smoked in a non-smoking area around the Ammun Disease Control Act at the time of his/her testimony in this Act and as a police officer's service, but there was a practice that sets the main facilities surrounding the Ammun Disease Control Act as a non-smoking area, for example, if he/she discovered a person who smoked in a bus stop, etc., the place of violation as well as the place of violation.

statement.

In light of these circumstances, the content of the self-determination report that the defendant smoked in the carbon disease control.