Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a worker for day duty.

1. On June 10, 2014, at around 21:46, the Defendant, while drinking alcohol at the main point of “D” in Pyeongtaek-si C, told the victim E to openly insult the Defendant, without any reason prior to the police box, the Defendant: (a) sent out the Fabb box to the victim, who was in charge of drinking alcohol and received a report at a time; and (b) expressed the victim’s desire to read “fabbri fabri, fabri, fabri, and fabri fabri.”

2. On June 10, 2014, the Defendant continued to disclose his status on June 22, 2014, and entered the F police box as a suspicion of insult E and went into the F police box, and made the Defendant publicly insulting the police officer by publicly insulting G, stating that the police officer “I ambry with a view to decrising, killing, and her eye,” while there are many people, such as E and I.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant (a statement to the effect that the police officer sent his/her personal information to the defendant, who received probation from the police officer, did not inform him/her of his/her personal information because he/she was on probation;

1. Legal statement of the witness J;

1. Protocol of the police statement concerning G;

1. A written statement of I;

1. Each complaint;

1. The investigation report (12 pages of the evidence record) [12 pages of the defendant's defense counsel] The defendant's defense counsel argued to the effect that it constitutes self-defense that a police officer took a desire to arrest a flagrant offender against the defendant because the arrest of a police officer was illegal. However, according to the evidence of the court below, the defendant's defense counsel is justified since the defendant's defense counsel expressed a desire to the police officer as stated in the facts charged and insulting the E while considering the police officer sent out as stated in the facts charged. The defendant was asked to ask the defendant's personal information, but the police officer asked the defendant, but the defendant did not disclose his personal information without presenting his/her identification. In light of these facts, the defendant's defense counsel's above assertion is without merit].