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

On May 26, 2013, around 08:00, the Defendant publicly saw that the Defendant and D had a dry field owned by the Defendant and D, such as a dry field of F, etc., acquired under the name of son on April 29, 2013, and that the Defendant fell within the scope of the victim’s reimbursement, and that the Defendant got a large amount of bitch bitch bitch bits, G, H, etc., as seen earlier, D had a bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch. The Defendant also expressed the victim’s bitch son’s bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch m.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspired with D to publicly insultd the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement of C and H;

1. The defendant's argument in the recording book is argued to the effect that there is no fact of conspiracy with D. However, in the case of co-offenders who act in collusion with two or more persons, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but must be sufficient if there is an implied communication on the joint execution of the crime directly or indirectly between the accomplices, and even if there is no direct evidence, it can be recognized in accordance with the circumstantial facts and empirical rules (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do868, Jun. 28, 2002). In light of the fact that the defendant and D, as a couple of the victim, were suffering from disputes such as use by passage and damage to crops, and D also took the above abusive language at the time and time of the above crime, the conspiracy relation between the defendant and D is sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of the Act and punishment concerning the facts constituting the crime;