beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant was guilty of the facts charged in this case, although the part of the boundary stone located on the road at the time of this case interfered with the passage of the people who are on the road at the time of this case, and the Defendant did not drunkly. This act by the Defendant does not constitute “a very rough or disorderly act by doing rough words or conducts, which makes the surrounding person flickly or without any justifiable reason,” as provided by Article 3(1)20 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, and the lower court convicted him of the facts charged in this case. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misapprehending the legal principles.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (100,000 won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Article 3(1)20 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act provides that “a person who, under the influence of alcohol, behaves in a riotous or disorderly manner by uttering or doing rough words or conducts, or who, without good cause, spirits another person under the influence of alcohol, is punished by a fine not exceeding 10,00 won, by penal detention, or by a minor fine.”
According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant, while being drunk from June 22, 2017 to June 15:10, 2017, under the condition that his body cannot be classified by being drunkly under the influence of alcohol in the street as indicated in the lower judgment (for other reasons, the legal statement by the witness of the lower court to this purport is difficult to believe in light of each legal statement by the witness E and F of the lower court). The Defendant expressed a desire to the construction workers on the street at the same time; the F, who is a person related to the construction at the time, went into her fry, “I return to her fry work within our private land”; and the Defendant took a ficial and again farcing the construction work; the Defendant continued to interfere with the construction work by having the police assigned for special guard; and eventually, contact the police station.