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

From June 7, 2018, the Defendant is the representative director of D Co., Ltd. who is the executory company of Kimpo-si Btel and manages the relevant officetel building by concluding a building management contract with the L Co., Ltd. The victim E around August 31, 2019, who was elected as the representative of the management body of the relevant officetel through an extraordinary general meeting among the owners of the above officetels, and the victim entered into a building management contract with the F Co., Ltd. on October 7, 2019, and notified the termination of the contract to the Defendant, and there was conflict with the Defendant in the process of demanding the acquisition and transfer of building management affairs.

At around 10:30 on October 31, 2019, at the management office located on the second floor of the instant officetel building, the Defendant publicly insultingd the victim by saying, “When the victim finds it together with the employees of the new building management company and demands the transfer and takeover of the business, the victim would have taken care of the victim.” The Defendant, even if he was aware of how much money was paid during the same management. The Defendant changed the details of the Defendant’s statement written in the facts charged to the extent that it is recognized as identical to the facts charged, and does not disadvantage the Defendant’s exercise of his right to defense, to the extent that it is recognized as identical to the facts charged, and recognized the contents of the Defendant’s statement written in the recorded file.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of the police statement record file CD-related statutes to E;

1. Relevant Article 311(1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. The statement made by the defendant on the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not constitute an insulting speech that leads to the social evaluation of the victim, and even if the defendant's act constitutes an insulting speech.