If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

1. On August 8, 2014, at around 05:30, the Defendant, with the joint signature of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, sent a report No. 3-1 2 p.m., and reported by the police officer C and the f.m., the Defendant: (a) sent a bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit

2. On August 8, 2014, the Defendant in violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act was arrested in flagrant offenders at the same time and at the same place as the above. Around 05:40 on August 8, 2014, the Defendant was arrested in flagrant offenders, and was transferred to a station patrol box located in the 62-26, Eunpyeongdong, Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul, and then, within the said police box, the Defendant saw a large amount of sound that “Cyp flap fris saw to die,” and dumped by very rough words and actions at the station, which is a public office, while under the influence of alcohol, such as flaping them into the floor

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The photograph of the defendant within the police box;

1. Application of the Extradition Act

1. Article 245 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes, Article 245 of the Criminal Act, Article 3 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, and the choice of fines;

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

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

1. Article 16 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes Committed;

1. The defense counsel's assertion of the defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is asserted to the effect that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder by drinking alcohol at the time of the crime of this case. Thus, according to the above evidence, it cannot be viewed that the defendant was aware that he had a certain degree of drinking alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, but it cannot be seen that the defendant had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions. Thus, the above argument is rejected.