Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

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

Punishment of the crime

On August 27, 2017, the Defendant was moving to the subway 3 lines in the subway stations located in Gyeyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, which had been moving to the subway 60 lines, and the Defendant was under the control of the subway security officers C in the vicinity of the independent subway stations located in 247 due to the reunification of Seodaemun-gu, Seoul.

On August 27, 2017, the Defendant added 30 times the boarding fee to the independent station service room located in 247 as the unification of Seodaemun-gu Seoul around 15:5 on August 27, 2017.

For the reason that he said, he assaulted the face of the above C three times by drinking.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the performance of duties concerning railroad operation and management of railroad workers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. Application of CCTV Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 78 (1) and Article 49 (2) of the relevant Act on the Safety of Railroads for Criminal Facts;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defense counsel regarding whether or not the mental or physical weakness of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order had committed the instant crime under the mental or physical weakness due to mental illness, etc.

The argument is asserted.

Although it appears that there is a little mental problem in light of the Defendant’s speech and behavior in this court, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances: (a) there is no evidence that the Defendant received treatment due to mental illness, etc.; (b) the details of the instant crime identified by the victim’s statement and CCTV images; and (c) the Defendant’s statement to the investigative agency immediately after the instant crime was committed; and (d) the Defendant was in a state of lacking ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of

As such, the above assertion is rejected.

The reason for sentencing is that although the defendant was old, there is only the fact that he was sentenced to a fine once due to the illegal state or the crime of injury, he recognizes it as a substitute for the crime, and the defendant is the defendant.