If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

At around 04:40 on June 29, 2018, the Defendant, at the end of Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, “I not have been aboard customers”, and “I not have been aboard customers in C,” told the victims E, the background leading up to the D District of the Bupyeong Police Station D District of Bupyeong-gu, which was requested to drive taxi articles, and the victims F, who are the f, the f, the f, who was the f, the f, the f, who was a taxi engineer, to pay the f, to pay the f,” thereby openly insulting the victims by publicly referring the victim F to “I are mentally ill,” and “I will continue to be a f,” the victim E.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness G, E, and F;

1. Letters of arrest of flagrant offenders and written confirmation;

1. Application of each statute on filing of a complaint;

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

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. Judgment on the assertion of the defendant and defense counsel under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act that bear litigation costs

1. The summary of the argument is that police officers did not take money so that they did not want to take care of the police officers in a simple manner, on the ground that police officers did not take money, and that they did not take care of police officers.

2. Determination

A. The offense of insult of the relevant legal doctrine is established when a person is openly insulting (Article 311 of the Criminal Act). The legal interest protected by the law is an external reputation, namely, a social evaluation of human 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 a statement of fact.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Do739, May 12, 1987; 2003Do3972, Nov. 28, 2003). Performance in the crime of insult refers to the state in which an unspecified or multiple persons can recognize it. Thus, performance in the crime of insult means a state in which an unspecified or multiple persons can recognize it, and thus, a certain fact against a specific person.