2. Where the defendant does not pay the above fine; 50.

1. A public performance and obscenity Defendant: (a) around 07:00 on November 16, 2012, at the front of the D cafeteria located in Gumi-si, Gumi-si; (b) exceeded all the bridges and clothes; and (c) committed a publicly obscene act by exposing the disturbance to the general public for approximately two minutes.

2. On November 16, 2012, the Defendant engaged in obstruction of performance of official duties: (a) around 07:05, at the place indicated in paragraph (1); (b) around 07:05, the Defendant used obscene acts as described in paragraph (1); and (c) used the police box affiliated with the former American Police Station Eabs, which called the scene upon receiving a report that the disturbance was avoided; (b) took a bath to F; and (c) took a f’s face to stop the Defendant’s behavior; and (d) assaulted the Defendant by putting f a f’

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the maintenance of police officers' order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Investigation reports (in relation to refusal to state damage to the owner of a DNA restaurant business), investigation reports (in relation to attachment of field photographs), and the application of statutes on site photographs attached thereto;

1. Relevant Article 245 of the Criminal Act and Article 245 of the Criminal Act (the point of public performance and obscenity, the choice of fines) and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

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

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

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion on the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is alleged to have been in a state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of each crime in the judgment of the defendant. Thus, according to each of the above evidence, even though he/she was found to have drinking alcohol at the time of each crime, it cannot be seen that the defendant's ability to discern things or make decisions is weak. Thus, the above argument is rejected.

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant is under suspension of execution due to the same crime.