B shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.

Defendant

B If the above fine is not paid, 50,000 won.

Defendant

B around 13:00 on July 17, 2013, the facts charged of D Apartment in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, stated that it is a primary apartment, but according to evidence, it is obvious that it is a clerical error, so it is corrected and recognized as above.

In the 103 Dong Crime Prevention Guards, the victim E (the age of 55) was mistaken for the defendant's mother-friendly A, and the other residents listen to, the victim's statement and the defendant's statement about "I am good when I am son, I am son, I am hye when I am hye, I am hye when I am hye, young young people hye." The facts charged were followed by the victim's statement, but there is no additional evidence in addition to the victim's statement, and there is possibility of exaggeration or mistake of the victim. Thus, the victim's statement was arranged as recognized by the defendant B without changing the indictment to the extent that there is no substantial disadvantage to the defendant's right to defense. The hye, hye, hye, hye, hye, and insulting the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Application of each of the first suspect interrogation protocol against the Defendants to the Defendants as to each part of the protocol

1. Article 311 of the Criminal Act and Article 311 of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the choice of fines;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The portion not guilty under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order

1. At around 13:00 on July 17, 2013, Defendant A, at the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Nowon-gu D apartment 103 Dong 103, Defendant A made a public insult of the victim E (the age of 55) who is not adequate for mutual appraisal due to a assault case, while the victims of several villages have heard, Defendant A made a public hump to the victim’s “weak and Chewing.”

2. At the time and place specified in this part of the facts charged, the E’s investigative agency and legal statement are admissible as evidence to prove that Defendant A expressed the same desire as the facts charged.