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

On October 25, 2016, in relation to the fire-prevention case that occurred in front of the defendant's house in front of Dong-ri City B around 15:00, the defendant publicly insultingd the victim by stating that there are seven to eight fire-prevention offenders such as D, etc., such as the victim's co-offenders, on the spot where there are seven to eight persons, such as D, the victim is the victim's "picker, the suspect, the flagrant offender, the criminal suspect, the victim, and the victim of fire."

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness C, E, D, and F;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

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

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the assertion was that the victim was not the victim at the time of the instant case, and the victim was merely the victim’s phrase “suspect, flagrant offender, and fire fighters” within the meaning of the provision on illegal asbestos removal work under the circumstances where the victim was in fact suspected of having committed a fire. Thus, it constitutes a justifiable act.

2. The offense of insult is established when a person is openly insulting (Article 311 of the Criminal Act). It is a legal interest that protects an external reputation, referring to a social evaluation of a person’s value. Here, insult refers to the expression of an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment, which is likely to undermine a person’s social evaluation, without indicating a fact.

Moreover, since the offense of insult is established by openly expressing an abstract judgment or a sacrific sentiment that may undermine the external reputation of the victim, it is not necessary that the external reputation of the victim is practically infringed or that there is a risk of infringement specifically and practically (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do9674, Oct. 13, 2016). This Court is the same.