A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant, as an employee who works to maintain and repair a building in the Si of Gunsan-si, maintained a good relationship with the victim D, who is a workplace member, due to the allocation of work with the victim D.

On January 2018, 2018, the Defendant publicly insultingd the victim at the above C2nd floor office, stating that the victim “this name must be changed” to “this name,” from the place where the worker was in the workplace E, F, etc., to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. The entry of part of the police's protocol of interrogation of the defendant's suspect into D, E, and G of the police's protocol of statement into the police's protocol of protocol of interrogation of the defendant's partial statement of the defendant, the investigation report (suspect's specific) and the application of the law

1. Relevant Article 311 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense and Article 311 of the Selection of Punishment;

1. At around 07:30 on January 24, 2019, the Defendant, at the office located in Gunsan-si, Seoul on the charge of not guilty of the charge under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, the Defendant, at the office located in Gunsan-si, the victim D, following the Defendant, carried the entrance to the above office, and the entrance was tightly pushed off three times to the victim, thereby causing the victim to shock the head of the victim, thereby causing the victim to suffer injury to the brain-dead in which there is no two or more open measures to treat the victim for two weeks.

2. Determination

A. Criminal facts in a criminal trial should be established based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have a reasonable doubt, and thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as where the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487, Apr. 28, 2011). B.

This Court is recognized based on the evidence duly adopted and examined.