The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. 공소사실의 요지 피고인은 2016. 7. 5. 10:40 경 구미시 C 앞 도로 상에서, 구미 경찰서 D 지구대 소속 경위인 피해자 E이 안전벨트 미 착용 등에 대한 교통 단속 근무를 하던 중 피고인이 운전하는 F 렉 서스 승용차를 정 차시켜 안전벨트 착용 여부를 확인한다는 이유로, 그 곳에서 신호 대기 중인 불상의 운전자들이 있는 곳에서 “ 야 씨 발 개새끼야, 왜 차를 세워, 씨발 놀랬잖아

“Breging,” and “Breging,” and the victim’s “Breging, police officers, have expressed their desire to regulate traffic, and breging expenses.”

“E............? The defective victim “????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

The victims were openly insulting by speaking in a large sound.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant: (a) during the process of protesting against E, which does not answer the cause for stopping a vehicle, the Defendant: (b) did not call for the word “culpate” or “culp”; (c) did not call for the word “culp” in a specific manner by specifying E; and (d) did not call for the word “culpin”, “this son”, and “Culp” to E.

The consistent arguments are consistently asserted.

B. The main evidence of the facts charged is the E’s statement at the investigation agency and the court.

E makes a statement from the Defendant that “Written the Defendant’s obsesses, i.e., f., e., e., f., e., e., e., f.,”

However, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to believe the statement as it is.

① From the time when the second investigation was conducted by the police, E had the desire to see the Defendant’s tymar, i.e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e.

The first investigation began with the statement, and the said statement was not made.

E’s statements are not consistent.

② From among other police officers who were at the scene at the time of the instant case, the Defendant himself/herself "weak", "Woo", and "Wook".