beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.
If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Criminal facts
The Defendant, at around 18:10 on May 11, 2013, was under the influence of alcohol in front of the New Market of Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, 1, a new market, under the influence of the underground road, and called to D, a police officer belonging to the Cdistrict, who was called to the site after receiving a report, was on board the patrol vehicle at around 18:20 on the same day, and called to “the inside house is going to go to the house of E apartment 305 Dong 504,” and became on the front parking lot of Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, 305 for the same day.
At the above location, the Defendant: (a) expressed that D was able to get the Defendant from the patrol car, and expressed that D was able to “I am, I am, I am, I am, I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. “I am. I am. I am. I am.” and “I am. I am. I am. I am.” and “I am. I am. I am. I am and am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am.”
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement made by the defendant to the effect that he causes a disturbance to police officers and drinking conditions at the time and place of the ruling;
1. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s assertion on D’s legal statement is not guilty of having video recording inside the patrol vehicle at the time of the instant case.
However, according to the victim D's legal statement, a traffic police officer, it is sufficiently recognized that he/she committed an assault without any justifiable reason to the victim who intends to move in his/her house, and the defendant's assertion that there is no video recording inside the patrol vehicle does not exist. The above recognition is insufficient solely for the circumstance of the defendant's argument that the
(D) According to D’s legal statement, it is recognized that the internal image device at the patrol is not much installed and causing an error in the storage device. Therefore, all facts charged are proven, and the Defendant’s assertion is acceptable.