Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

2. On January 24, 2016, the Defendant: (a) while driving a car around 11:20 on a day on January 24, 2016, the Defendant violated the signal on a three-distance road before the bank moving in Songpa-gu Seoul; (b) controlled the victim E and the guard F of the Seoul Southern Police Station D District.

In order to issue a penalty notice, the defendant tried to request the victim to provide an identification card, and the victim rejected the request.

In the meantime, the Defendant was able to take care of the victim as follows: “I am, I am, I am, and I am,” and “I am, I am, I am, I am,” while I am, the police officers, the Defendant’s children, and the majority of the actors.

As a result, the Defendant openly insultingd the victim while complying with multiple actors, etc.

3. The lower court’s judgment does not constitute an insulting speech that could objectively undermine the social evaluation of E’s personal value.

In light of the facts charged of this case, innocence was pronounced.

4. The offense of insult or insult of a party’s deliberation is established when a person is openly insulting (Article 311 of the Criminal Act). It is a legal interest that protects an external reputation, meaning a social evaluation of a person’s value. Here, insult refers to the expression of an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment, which is likely to undermine a person’s social evaluation, without indicating any fact.

In addition, since the offense of insult is established by openly expressing an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that may undermine the external reputation of the victim, it is not necessary that the external reputation of the victim is practically infringed or that there is a risk of infringement specifically and practically (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do9674, Oct. 13, 2016), a third party can be recognized at the time of display.