A. Defendant A(1) The prosecutor asserting the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the rule of exclusion of illegally collected evidence did not secure CCTV images installed in the Seoul Southern District Court’s comprehensive civil petition office while filing a prosecution against Defendant A. However, the CCTV images constitute unlawful collection evidence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the facts charged. (2) Defendant A’s speech to the victims does not constitute insult in the crime of insult. (2) On July 31, 2013, when submitting a complaint at the Seoul Southern District Court’s comprehensive civil petition office, the receipt was required, but the receipt was taken in lieu of the receipt, and the employees of the comprehensive civil petition office did not comply with it, and thus, the court security management unit (the name of the court at the time of the crime of this case was changed to the name of Defendant B and the police manager at the court at the time of the crime of this case, and thus, Defendant A did not change to the name of the police officer at the court at the bar and the police manager at the court at the time of this case.)

Defendant

A, even on August 7, 2013, in relation to the issuance of a receipt by visiting a general civil petition office, a public official in charge of Kameras was taken by visiting a general civil petition office with a reception officer, and at that time the employees of the general civil petition office and employees of the court security management unit deducted Kameras, etc.

7. 31. The same conduct was committed in the same manner as the conduct in 31.

Defendant

A think that the action of the court officials is against the exercise of governmental power and the action against Article 66(1) of the State Public Officials Act.