A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On October 20, 2013, from around 02:30 to 03:40 the same day, the Defendant was under investigation by the D police box located in Daegu-gu C for the purpose of a sprinking a sprink, and the Defendant was able to avoid disturbance over about 1 hour and 10 minutes under the influence of alcohol by smoking tobacco on the floor and under the influence of alcohol on the floor.

Accordingly, the defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, forced or scamed by very rough words and conducts at government offices.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F, E, and G;

1. Investigation Report (Attachment of cellphone images) - Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to Chapter 1 of On-site video CDs;

1. Article 3 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and the selective punishment of minor crimes;

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

1. According to the evidence of determination as to the assertion that the act of disturbance against illegal arrest and confinement under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is a justifiable act, the defendant's assertion that the defendant did not respond to the request of a police officer for returning home before being arrested in the instant case, and committed a disturbance, such as neglect, freely misleads inside and outside the earth, and taking a bath, etc., and even though the police officer notified that the defendant could have been arrested if the defendant continued to commit a disturbance, the defendant's act of disturbance committed within the government office prior to the arrest of the defendant constitutes a justifiable act as a defense against illegal arrest or confinement. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the defendant and the defense counsel's act

After the Defendant was arrested as the instant case, the Defendant is dissatisfied with the legitimacy of the procedure for handling the instant case, but the procedural problems after the arrest of the instant case affect the establishment of the instant crime.