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

On December 28, 2015, at around 11:22, 2015, the Defendant connected the Internet Messenger, and refers to the victim C, D, and E’s group or toilet room connected by the Defendant and refers to the victim. The Defendant “Neman-gu’s father who was the Defendant’s father.”

H. H. T. T. T. T. T. T. human farbarg, Maman-Man-man, Ann.

“Publicly insulting the victim by posting the language “”.

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry of the defendant in part in the first trial record;

1. Each legal statement of witness C, D, and E;

1. The criminal defendant and his/her defense counsel (the defendant and his/her defense counsel posted a letter as stated in its reasoning, but only the defendant and the victim were the victim since the person who had access to the NAT TV room at the time was actually only the defendant and the victim. Thus, the public performance of the offense of insult is not recognized.

However, according to the evidence duly examined by this court, it can be recognized that the defendant and the victim as well as E and C have been connected with the crime of this case at the bar room where the crime of this case was committed. Thus, the performance of the crime of this case can be recognized.

Therefore, the above argument by the defendant and defense counsel cannot be accepted.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 311 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense and Article 311 of the choice of punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act bearing Costs of Trial;