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

Around June 7, 2018, the Defendant, as a resident of Seongdong-gu Seoul apartment C, had a dispute with the victim E and noise problem residing in the above apartment guard room around 23:30 on June 7, 2018. The Defendant publicly insulting the victim by openly insulting the victim with the large interest of “a dog, sprink,” while the security guard F, G, etc. are hearing.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E, F and G;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on report of occurrence;

1. Article 311 of the Criminal Act and Article 311 of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the choice of fines;

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

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserts that at the time of the instant case, the Defendant did not wish the victim to “assort”, and even if the Defendant intended to do so, the security room at the time was only two security guards other than the Defendant and the victim, and that there was no performance.

In full view of the evidence duly examined and adopted by this Court, it is sufficiently recognized that, at the time of this case, the defendant expressed the victim’s desire to “assort,” “assort,” the victim.

In addition, performance in the crime of insult refers to the state in which many, unspecified or unspecified persons can recognize it, and even if the facts are distributed to one person, if there is a possibility of spreading them to many, unspecified or unspecified persons, the requirements of performance are satisfied.

However, according to the records, it is recognized that F and G, who are employed as an employee of the apartment management company and worked as the security guard of the apartment site, have heard the desire of the defendant for the victim, and F and G are merely limited to the security guards employed by the management company in relation to the defendant and the victim, who are the occupants, and they do not spread the defendant's horses.