When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

On November 4, 2017, the Defendant, at around 03:30 on November 4, 2017, 03:30, driven D’s Kakao Stockholm message with D’s Kakao Stockholm messages on the victim E with a male arm’s tag in the year in which it is impossible to provide a year with the E Kakama, and followed the male test, so it was easy for the Defendant to do so, and the Defendant did so.

D Doz. Doz. Doz. if any, Doz. Doz.

’ 라는 내용을 전송하고, 2017. 11. 5. 23:30 경 같은 장소에서 카카오 톡 메시지로 ‘ 가랑이 함부로 벌리고 다닌 벌을 톡톡히 치루게 될 꺼라고 전하셔’ 라는 내용을 전송하여 공연히 피해자를 모욕하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. The written complaint (the defendant and his defense counsel) asserts that a crime cannot be constituted because the defendant's act has no public performance.

However, public performance, which is the element of the crime of insult, refers to the state in which many, unspecified or unspecified persons can recognize it, and even if a person has transmitted a victim’s insulting words individually, if there is a possibility of transmitting them to an unspecified or many, it satisfies the requirements of public performance.

The following circumstances revealed through each of the above evidence, i.e., the victim's friendship or will, although D does not seem to have a separate relationship to keep the victim's letter confidential (as a result of the defendant's investigation agency's statement, the defendant was aware of D through the addition of Kakao-stopy, and it seems that D was aware of the victim's friendship, and that D was not aware of the relationship between D and the victim in detail).

In light of the above, the performance of the defendant's act of transmitting words such as criminal facts to D is performed.