Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

피고인은 2014. 12. 14. 03:20부터 같은 날 03:30 사이에 부산 부산진구 C에 있는 D편의점 앞 노상에서 주변을 통행하는 주민들에게 술을 마신 상태에서 소란을 피우다가 112 신고를 받고 피해자인 부산진경찰서 E지구대 소속 경장 F이 출동하자, G 등 여러 사람이 듣고 있는 가운데 피해자에게, "너는 집에 가라. 어린 놈의 새끼가. 인마. 이 씹 새끼가. 어린 놈의 새끼가 꺼져라. 너는 개자슥아 형사도 아니다 개자슥아. 이 씹할 놈아. 해라 해 이 개새끼야."라고 말하여 공연히 피해자를 모욕하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Court statement of the defendant (the second court date);

1. Application of each police protocol to G and F

1. Relevant laws and Articles 311 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. The defense counsel's assertion on the defense counsel under Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse asserts that the defendant's act is a legitimate act that does not violate the social rules, since the police officer took a cell phone to a police officer, although the defendant was called to receive a cell phone, he saw the police officer to take a cell phone at the time of leaving the cell phone, and he

However, in light of the circumstances revealed by the evidence of this case, the defendant's behavior, etc., it is difficult to view that the requirements such as legitimacy of motive or purpose, reasonableness of means or method, balance between protected interests and infringed interests, urgency, and supplement have been satisfied.

Therefore, the above argument shall not be accepted.