beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On March 10, 2017, when the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol on March 15:50, the Defendant: (a) was arrested in the act of interference with the performance of a separate official duty; (b) reported that a person under the name was arrested in the act of interference with the performance of a separate official duty; and (c) led the Defendant to a police box that was carried out by a person under the name of the
On March 10, 2017, the Defendant entered a police box located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D on March 15, 2017, and expressed a large voice by informing of the reason why the non-existence of name in the instant case was arrested.
Therefore, even though the police officer E, etc., who belongs to the above C police box solicits the Defendant to return home on several occasions on the grounds that the Defendant was not interested in the case of a person who was not a person who was killed in the name of the Defendant, the police box sent him to the Defendant for a period of about 15 minutes, such as the following reasons: (a) the period during which the person was unable to return home without having refused to return home, and (b) the period during which the person was unable to correct and enter the entrance after leaving the Defendant; and (c) repeated the doors corrected by drinking.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. A written statement of the main officer;
1. Data to cut CCTV;
1. Results of the reproduction and viewing of CCTV CDs;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes for reporting investigations by prosecutors;
1. Article 3(3)1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, Article 3(3)1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, and Article 3(3)1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (the Defendant’s act was an urgent and inevitable means, as it is difficult to see that the Defendant’s act is reasonable in the means and method, and thus
As such, it cannot be viewed as a justifiable act.
Therefore, we cannot accept the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel to the purport of disputing it.
2. Article 70 (1) and Article 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse.
3. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment.