In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

At around 15:00 on November 6, 2012, the Defendant received a demand from the victim D (the age of 45) to allow the Defendant to enter the awarded house by auction, and the Defendant publicly insultd the victim by saying, “I am dynasium, I dynasium, I dynasium. I dynasium, I dynasium, I dynasium, I dynasium, I dynasium, and “I dynasium from time I dynasium, I dynasium, I dynasium, I dynasium,” and “I dynasium, I dynasium, I dynas

Summary of Evidence

1. Witnesses D and E respective legal statements;

1. Part of the police interrogation protocol of the defendant

1. Part of each police statement of D and E;

1. A complaint;

Judgment on the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion

1. Summary of the assertion

At the time of the instant case, the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the instant prosecution is unlawful since the victim had expressed a dump husium with the victim’s desire to do so, but did not look at the victim’s sexual organ, and did not meet the requirements for performance. In addition, even if it does not so, the Defendant and his defense counsel filed a complaint after the lapse of six months from the date of the instant crime, since the instant prosecution was unlawful.

2. Determination

(a) Whether the requirements for insult and performance are satisfied;

5) In the crime of insult, the term “publicly” refers to a situation in which an individual can be recognized directly by an unspecified or many unspecified persons, and it does not have to be recognized that the insulting act could be recognized by an unspecified or unspecified person. According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court, the Defendant’s use of the “Icheon-gun Building (Bae-Ba, 86.82m)” was first owned by G, but the Defendant acquired the ownership of the Defendant’s horse at the time of 201, 200, by winning that the Defendant’s use of the said office could not be seen as a “public use” as a “public use” under Article 311 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Do873, Sept. 25, 1990). However, the Defendant’s use of the “Icheon-gun Building (No one is the victim’s use of the instant office, i.e., the Defendant’s use of the instant office.

According to the above facts of recognition, if the defendant made the above statements to the victim, damage is done.

As an expression of abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that could undermine the social evaluation of a person, it constitutes insult, and it is also recognized as a performance because there was a possibility that the defendant could recognize that he or she is referred to as such.

B. Whether a legitimate complaint is filed

(2) If the complainant voluntarily states the facts that are not originally stated in the criminal complaint at an investigative agency, it shall be deemed that the criminal facts have been reported to the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do2652, Feb. 9, 1996). According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court, the victim received a written complaint from the Ycheon Police Station on February 7, 2013 to the effect that the victim reported the criminal facts to the investigative agency in writing or orally, and the person having the right to demand criminal punishment against the offender. The defendant's statement to the 3rd police station on February 8, 2013 to the effect that he/she was subject to a supplementary examination by the 3rd police station on February 1, 2013, "the defendant was subject to punishment by force," but the defendant's new statement to the effect that he/she was left in the building by asserting that he/she was the owner of the Ycheon-gun building at the time of the instant case, and the defendant's new statement to the 2nd.

According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the victim made an oral statement on February 8, 2013, before six months have passed from the date of the crime of this case, that the victim reported the insulting crime of the defendant, such as the facts charged in this case, and expressed his/her intent to demand criminal punishment. Thus, the victim's complaint is lawful, and the prosecution based thereon is lawful.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, we cannot accept all the above arguments of the defendant and his defense counsel.

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

§ 311. Selection of fine

1. Invitation of a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is 80 senior citizens who are not subject to criminal punishment, and the victim demands that the defendant's H enter the awarded house with a somewhat unusual attitude so that the defendant's H may enter the awarded house and use some of the expression in the process of refusal, and there are more favorable circumstances such as taking into account some of the circumstances.

However, according to the evidence mentioned above, even if the facts charged are sufficiently recognized, there are unfavorable circumstances such as the defendant's satisfy denial of the crime, and the situation of the opening is insufficient.

In these circumstances, the punishment as ordered shall be determined in consideration of the age, character and conduct, environment, etc. of the defendant.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.