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

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

Punishment of the crime

around 00:24 October 22, 2016, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol in front of D main points in Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu, Seoul, and was under the influence of alcohol, thereby lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions, and was under the influence of panty.

The E, etc. used approximately 100 meters to move 100 meters to the F University in a state where her gender and her tamp with many unspecified people, such as E, had been seen to be sexually and openly obscene.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Photographs at the time of arrest of a flagrant offender;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (E telephone investigation);

1. Article 245 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 245 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of fines;

1. Articles 10(2) and 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act for statutory mitigation (mental and physical weakness) [Article 10(2) and 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da15488, Apr. 2, 2007] are deemed to have a state of lacking ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol, on the grounds that the Defendant, who did not have any criminal record of the same type of crime, escaped the entire load of the Defendant, and was investigated in the detention room as a rain by getting out of the mind even in the detention room, and that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime. However, in light of the Defendant’s speech and behavior, etc. known by the witness’s statement, etc., it is difficult to

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

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

1. The fact that the confession of the crime for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is contradictory to the confession of the crime for the reason of sentencing, the fact that there is no record of the same kind of crime, and it appears that the crime was committed contingent under the influence of alcohol, the fact that there was a record of the suspension of indictment on one occasion due to the damage of property and that there was a record of being discovered twice due to drinking, the degree of sexual humiliation or apprehension that people who have observed the act of recording the crime are unlikely to feel.