When the defendant does not pay the above fine.

1. No person who violates the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act shall, while under the influence of alcohol, engage in a riotous or disorderly act by uttering or doing rough words or conducts at a public office;

그럼에도 피고인은 2019. 2. 8. 21:20경 서울 노원구 B에 있는 C파출소에서, 그냥 그곳에서 근무 중인 경찰관들에게 “씹할 놈, 죽여버리겠다. 개새끼 맞짱을 뜨자.”라고 욕설을 하고 바닥에 누워 소리를 지르는 등 약 40분 동안 술에 취한 상태로 소란을 피우고 시끄럽게 하였다.

2. On February 8, 2019, the Defendant damaged public goods: (a) around 22:25, 2019, the Defendant: (b) caused the tablers used at the instant C police box to take a hole by drinking the table; and (c) destroyed the table so that the repair cost equivalent to KRW 150,000 is to be incurred.

Accordingly, the Defendant damaged the goods used by public offices.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of the offender;

1. A client who is damaged, a suspect's main photograph, a criminal investigation report (Submission of a written estimate for public goods), and a written estimate;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to investigative reports (verification of motion pictures), screen pictures, photogrammatic photographs, and video copies;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 141 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of damage to public goods, the choice of imprisonment), and Article 3 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (the point of disturbance for cancellation of the head of government office and the selection of fines);

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2 and 3, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Social service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (hereinafter “the Criminal Procedure Act”) under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, where the defendant was under influence of alcohol and damaged public goods, the nature of the crime is bad.

However, the fact that all of the crimes of this case are recognized and reflected by the defendant, the fact that the defendant does not repeat again, and the degree of damage is relatively minor is considered in favor of others.