The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On November 15, 2018, the Defendant: (a) from around 06:0 to around 07:00, at the Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Police Station C police station located in Mapo-gu, Seoul; (b) while under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant saw the police officers with a large amount of sound as a complaint for the duties of dealing with civil petitions by police officers; and (c) while working

As such, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, had a very rough and disorderly speech or behavior at a public office.

2. Determination

A. Article 3(3)1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act provides for the punishment of “a person who, while under the influence of alcohol, behaves in a riotous or disorderly manner by uttering or doing rough words or conducts at a public office.”

However, the purpose of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act is to protect the freedom and rights of the people and to contribute to the maintenance of public order by prescribing matters necessary for the kinds and punishment of minor crimes (Article 1). In the application of the above Act, the above Act must be carefully cautioned so as not to infringe the rights of the people, and the above Act shall not be applied for any other purpose beyond its original purpose (Article 2 prohibition of abuse). In light of such legislative purpose and the principle of prohibition of abuse, Article 3(3)1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act should be strictly interpreted.

B. However, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the instant argument and the record, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, which led the Defendant to a somewhat inappropriate manner with the police’s complaint in the process of treating civil petitions, and subsequently, led the Defendant to a very rough and disorderly speech and behavior to the extent of violating Article 3(3)1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act.

It is insufficient to recognize that a person has slick or slicked, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

1. The defendant is why the police officer's self-determination is dint, why is, and why is, why is, why is, why is, why is, why is, why is, why the police officer's self-determination.