beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 12, 2015, G, the Plaintiff’s assistant, was controlled by a drunk driving, and was investigated by the I police box located in the Tong Young-si.
On December 04, 2015, from around 00:40 to 00:55 on the same day, the Defendant continued to go home with G, which had been under the influence of drinking, and followed G, one’s day, which had been under the influence of drinking, and had been assigned to the police officer B, who was under the influence of alcohol within the police box at the time, and did not have any contact as to whether he would have returned to the lost person, on the ground that he was under the influence of alcohol to the police officer B who was under the influence of alcohol, and that he did not have any contact with the police officer B, the Defendant carried out the instant police officer B, stating that “I will have shot shotfs, dogbs, and do not have any mind that I would like to pay taxes.” However, despite the police officer’s comments, the Defendant carried out a very rough act, such as having the police officer’s and police officer’s chest, and carried out his behavior within 15 minutes of a disturbance, including a riot.
B. On April 27, 2015, the Plaintiff, who was accompanied by G, was accompanied by a vehicle driven by G after drinking alcohol, committed an act of disturbance as set forth in the following subparagraphs by the I box, according to G, and accordingly, was indicted for a violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, and was issued a summary order of KRW 600,000,000,000,000,000,000 won by the Changwon District Court Heading Branching 2015 Highest 1921.
C. On May 18, 2015, the Plaintiff, dissatisfied with the above summary order, filed a request for formal trial with the Changwon District Court Branch Branching 2015DaMa318, and in the above case, the Plaintiff’s “Before the Plaintiff was arrested as a flagrant offender,” was conducted in the process of resisting a police officer’s high-tension and imprudent attitude, and constitutes a justifiable act, or constitutes a justifiable act. The Plaintiff’s abusive or disturbance after the Defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender, resisting the police officer’s arrest of an illegal flagrant offender due to excessive flusssium, and the Plaintiff’s injury.