If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Around 09:00 on July 11, 2012, the Defendant made an objection against the victim D's business ability, etc., who is the head of the management office at the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Apartment Complex Management Office, Young-gu Office. On the job where four employees, such as the management office employees E, etc., made a public insult of the victim by referring to the victim as the victim's "satisfy's illness or satch, and satched so far."

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to evidential materials, detailed lists;

1. Relevant Article 311 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense and Article 311 of the Selection of Punishment;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act against the provisional payment order. The defendant asserted that the defendant only made the instant statement to the effect that the victim, who is the director of the management office, did not have any intention to insult the victim.

In the crime of insult, the term “defluence” refers to the expression of an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that may undermine the people’s social evaluation without indicating a fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8917, Dec. 11, 2008). In order to punish a person as a crime of insult, at least dolusent intent is required as a subjective element of the constituent elements of the crime. As such, not only is it aware of the fact that the act constitutes insult but also requires an internal deliberation intent to allow the act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do74 Decided May 14, 2004, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the statement of this case constitutes an expression of an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment which may sufficiently undermine the social assessment of the victim, and the defendant made the above statement to the head of the management office, etc., inasmuch as he/she made the above statement to the victim, who is the head of the management office, in the presence of the management office, while making a dispute with the victim.