2. 모욕 피고인은 2017. 12. 5. 04:00 경 위 장소에서 위 식당 주인 등이 듣고 있는 가운데 신고를 받고 출동한 경찰 관인 피해자 F, G에게 “ 이런 개새끼들 아. 니들 뭘 받아 처먹었냐.

Nant police booms do not need this sub-section, and they do not need this sub-section h. L. I do not need to do so.

After being transferred to the prosecution, the victims were insultd openly by speaking in the so-called "the so-called "public interest".

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Each complaint filed by F and G;

1. Investigation report (to hear statements about damage situations caused by a boomed victim);

1. Previous convictions: Inquiries about criminal history and investigation reports (verification of the gravity of the period of a suspect, repeated crime and attachment of the relevant judgment);

1. Relevant Article 314 of the Criminal Act and Articles 314 (1) and 311 of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of criminal facts;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes;

1. Grounds for sentencing under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the same Act, as the punishment for concurrent crimes;

1. Reviewing the sentencing criteria [the scope of the recommended punishment] and interference with the affairs of the first class (Interference with Duties) [one month to eight months] [the person who is specially mitigated] the penalty non-members (including efforts to recover damage), and the sentencing criteria are set only for some crimes, referring only to the lower limit; and

2. Determination of the sentence as ordered by taking into account the circumstances following the determination of the sentence and other conditions of sentencing recorded in the records.

Despite the fact that there are several previous forces of the defendant, the victim D commits each of the crimes of this case during the period of repeated crime, and is against the punishment of the defendant.