Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

1. On December 30, 2014, around 19:20 on December 30, 2014, the Defendant interfered with the operation of a bus operation by: (a) the Defendant: (b) d 105 urban bus stops operated by the victim C (the age of 68) under the influence of alcohol while riding in the bus bus No. 1104; and (c) d 105 under the influence of alcohol; and (d) the victim “not immediately park the bus on the bus stop; and (d) until why he stops a bus at the middle, he will stop the bus and stop the bus at the middle; and (d) caused a bridge to shoot the city, leading the Defendant to shoot the bridge, by taking the 30 passengers aboard the bus in the bus with the disturbance of the bus, booming the bridge of the bus passengers, thereby interfering with the operation of the bus by force of the victim.

2. The Defendant, at the same time, and at the same place as indicated in the above 1. Paragraph 1. at the same time and place, and as seen above, committed assault against the victims, each of whom was committed by the Defendant, on the ground that the victim E (the years of age 31) who was the bus passenger was able to carry with the bus engineer, “the bus engineer was able to be able to sat down and operate the bus.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Part of the statement of witness F in the third protocol of the trial;

1. Part of the statement of C by a witness in the fourth trial record;

1. Each police statement made to C, E, and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes in writing C;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, the choice of fines, and the choice of fines;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant's act constitutes a legitimate act that does not violate the social rules, but the above time limit is justified.