[Defendant-Appellee]

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Victims B and C are marital relations, and victims B are marital relations with D, the spouse of the defendant.

At around 5, 13, 23:00, the Defendant posted the victim B by Kakakao Kakaoo faooofafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafabing the victim B, and insulting the victim B, and 'Afafafafafafabbabbafafabbabs the same as 'Afafabbaf', the Defendant would be able to inform her husband of the fafabbbbb, and the fabbabbbbbabbaf, the Defendant would be able to go beyond the fabbbbbaf? As I think, I am am fafafafafaf, which reads the victim C, and insulting the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement concerning B and C;

1. Investigation report (report accompanied by submitted data by a complainant);

[Defendant asserts that the content of the Kakao Stockholm conversation was exchanged with D, and that there was no intention to insult victims only due to the letters posted in D’s personal data program. However, it can be recognized that the content of the Kakakao Stockholm dialogue between the Defendant and D, and the content posted by the Defendant, included the insulting contents related to the victims, and that the Defendant posted the content of the Kakao Kaka Kakao Kao Kao Kao Kao Kao Kao Gaog on the personal data program of D cannot be deemed to have had no intention to insult victims solely on the ground that he posted the content of D and D.

Although the Defendant asserts that there was no performance, the Defendant did not have a public performance, the Defendant’s assertion that there is no possibility of spreading the insult to the victims as well as third parties, even if he did not go through a shrug, writing comments and good hysium, etc., as long as he/she posted a photograph of Kakaoogle on the part of his/her public performance. Accordingly, the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion are

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 311 of the Criminal Code; Selection of each fine

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act