The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. On December 25, 2010, the Defendant: (a) on December 25, 2010, at around 03:10, the Defendant was notified of the disturbance of drinking alcohol, etc. from D District Assistant Inspector E in the Daejeon Seo-gu Daejeon District Police Station D District Station D District Von-gu, Daejeon, to Article 1 Subparag. 25 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (e.g., drinking disturbance), but did not pay the first penalty of KRW 50,00,000, the second penalty of KRW 60,000, and the third penalty of KRW 75,000 (in short, the highest penalty of KRW 75,00) within the given period.

An act was committed.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proof of criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial shall be borne by a prosecutor, and the conviction shall be based on evidence with probative value that makes a judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, the interest of the defendant shall be determined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5662, Dec. 24, 2002). B. The date on which the act of violation of this case was discovered is December 25, 2010.

At the time of the discovery, the defendant denied his criminal act by refusing to affix a seal to the report on the self-declaration of offense, and even after the notice on the payment of multiple penalties was issued since February 1, 2011, the defendant did not pay it, and the defendant did not attend the police station even at the request of attendance over several times.

Nevertheless, on September 15, 2015, the head of the Daejeon East Police Station did not conduct any investigation of witnesses F and G until his memory of the offender of the instant crime by the date on which the statute of limitations expires, and filed a petition for a trial at this court on September 15, 2015, which was earlier than three months before the expiration of the statute of limitations.

(c)

As shown in the facts charged in the instant case, there are inquiries about the witness E’s legal statement, the criminal fact-finding report, and the notification disposition, which seems to correspond to the facts charged in the instant case.

However, in the instant case where there is no defense that the Defendant had committed a disturbance in the principal place, the above evidence alone is presented in light of the following circumstances.