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

1. On March 9, 2018, the Defendant voluntarily accompanied the assault case (receiving number 2018-003491) on the street in front of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, to Seoul Mapo-gu and “D Zone”, and the Defendant’s voluntary accompanying inside the earth was mincing a large volume of one hour per hour, and took a bath to police officers.

As a result, the Defendant committed an act of disturbance of cancellation with a speech and behavior done for about one hour at the D District Office of Seoul Mapo Police Station D.

2. Determination

A. Article 3(3)1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act provides that “a person, while under the influence of alcohol, who, by doing rough words and conducts, carries in a riotous or disorderly manner at a government office, shall be punished.”

Unlike ordinary cases, this is interpreted to mean cases where a police officer, etc. fails to comply with legitimate instructions from police officers and other public officials, unlike ordinary times, due to the influence of alcohol, or makes an objection exceeding the necessary level. In light of the legislative intent and purpose of Article 1 and Article 2 (Prohibition of Abuse) of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act and Article 3 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act at the time of the enactment of the Act and the purport of Article 3 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, Article 3 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act should be strictly interpreted.

B. However, in light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, it is difficult to deem that the act of the Defendant within the D District by the evidence presented by the prosecutor has reached the revocation column of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act.

1) Police officers belonging to the D global group were dispatched to the D global group under the 112 notification order, “satisf between a substitute engineer and a customer,” and voluntarily accompanying the Defendant, a customer, to the D global group under the suspicion of assault.

2) In the D District, the Defendant signed the consent of voluntary accompanying presented by the police officer, but read the consent of voluntary accompanying, and failed to hear the explanation about the voluntary accompanying due to the police officer's suspicion of assault, and signed the consent.