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

1. At around 01:30 on January 9, 2015, the Defendant: (a) expressed the victim’s desire to “C” at the victim’s horse, “Is the victim’s speech that Is the victim’s f (the age of 43) who is a police officer belonging to the Busan Police Station E zone E zone unit, and called for 112 after receiving 112 a report due to the foregoing alcohol problem D and alcohol value; and (b) expressed the victim’s desire to “Is the victim f (the age of 43) f (the age of 43) f (the victim’s employee D et al., who is the police officer belonging to the said station E zone E zone unit at the time when Is the victim’s speech that Is the victim’s speech that Is the victim “Is the dthth of drh, hing, and hing.” and insulting the victim’s speech.

2. At around 01:45 on January 9, 2015, the Defendant publicly insulting the victim by publicly insulting the victim “as he listened by six police officers, such as H, for the same reason as Paragraph 1, in the E District located in Seosan City, the Defendant: (a) expressed that “I see. I see. I see if I am, I see. I see am, I see am, I am, I am, I am, I am, am son,”

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. The police statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the police made to F, D, and H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to accusation prepared by the F;

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

2. From among concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes as provided for in paragraph (2) of the said Article with heavier judgment)

3. The reasons for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act with respect to detention in the workhouse do not constitute a good quality crime, such as insulting a public official who was performing official duties.

However, even though it does not reach the degree of mental suffering, the defendant seems to have committed a crime as stated in the judgment in the case in which he is drunk, the defendant is crypted and led to a confession, and the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, etc. are shown in the arguments in this case.