2. The ○○○ (the 1955 life), the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○.

The custody of senior citizens in a workhouse.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines.

No passenger on an airplane shall engage in any disturbing conduct, such as a breadth or a scarcity, in the airplane in flight, notwithstanding the prior warning of the captain, etc.

On October 13, 2013, at around 17:10 on October 17:10, 2013, Defendants boarded at the port of supply of Kimhae-dong in Gangseo-gu, Busan, Busan, to 80117, Defendant knb ○○ demanded crew ○○○ to have a seat seat on a non-permanent seat, but was rejected, Defendant knb ○○ did not fasten the seat belt during flight during flight, and even upon receiving a demand from other female crew ○○○, Defendant knb ○○ to have a seat seat belt every month from other female crew members, it was difficult for Defendant ○○ to have knb ○○ upon having knb knb knb knb knb knb knb knb knb knb knb knb knb knb knb knb knb knb knb knb k.

Although Defendants received prior warning from the crew ○○○, who was delegated with the authority by the captain due to the above acts, Defendant ○○ continued to engage in a large sense, such as “the flusing network for the service would bring about an accusation,” and Defendant ○○ also ○○ was “Ch. A. B.”

As a result, the Defendants conspired to commit a disturbance over about 5 to 10 minutes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made by Defendant ○○ in the first trial record (limited to Defendant ○○○○○);

1. Statement of a witness Kim○-○ in the third protocol of trial;

1. Each statement made by the witness at the ○○○ and Kim Il-young in the fourth trial record;

1. Legal statement of the witness ○○○;

1. A written statement in Kim○-○, Kang○-○, and Kim Il-young;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 50(2) and 23(1)1 of the former Aviation Safety and Security Act (Amended by Act No. 11753, Apr. 5, 2013)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on Defendant ○○ and Defense Counsel’s argument

1. The assertion;

Defendant ○○ was seated next to the seat of Defendant ○○○○○, and there was no verbal abuse against the crew or a disturbance against the crew.

2. Determination

The court duly adopted and examined the following circumstances: ① Defendant ○○○○○○○○’s crew member at the time of the instant accident (hereinafter “○○○○○○○○○○○○○”) demanded the above crew member to sit in an emergency seat, but the Defendant refused to sit in the seat belt at the time of his refusal, and the Defendant ○○○○○’s crew member was able to turn off the seat belt directly to the Defendant ○○○○. Moreover, Defendant ○○○○’s ○○○○○ crew member’s right to sit in the accident of the safety of the Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s seat seat, and Defendant 1’s testimony on behalf of the Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s seat, which was well known to the effect that the Defendant ○○○○○○○’s seat was well known to the effect that the Defendant ○○○○’s seat was not well known.

Reasons for sentencing

The disturbance during the flight of aircraft needs to be punished by severe punishment as threatening the safety of aircraft on board by many passengers; Defendant ○○ recognized the facts of the crime; the time and degree of the disturbance during the flight of aircraft; Defendant ○○ is a class 4 disabled person without delay; the motive and circumstances leading to the crime of this case; the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, criminal records, etc. shall be determined as per the order.

In general, the specific contents of the act of disturbance are identical to those of the Defendants, but it is only changed to the specific crew member, who is the other party to the Defendants’ remarks.

The identity of the office is recognized.