Defendant shall be punished by a fine not exceeding three hundred thousand won.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one million won shall be the one day.

Punishment of the crime

On August 6, 2014, the Defendant publicly insultingd the victim by publicly insultingd the victim on the part of the Defendant’s Dora parking lot located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on August 6, 2014, when the Defendant’s Do and the victim E are said to have a vehicle parking problem, following D’s letter, while Dogra residents are viewed as having been living.

Summary of Evidence

1. Protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects of E by the prosecution;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects of E;

1. Each police statement concerning E and F;

1. F's certificate;

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

1. Relevant Article 311 of the Criminal Act and Selection of Punishment for the Crime. Article 311 (Selection of Fine)

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

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserts that the defendant had no statement as stated in the facts charged E.

However, considering that D’s statements consistent with this, it is difficult to believe that D’s falsity is the Defendant’s fraud, while E and F’s statements in investigation agencies are consistent and specific (E made a statement to the effect that “E took a bath from the Defendant” even at the time of the preparation of the police interrogation protocol), it can be sufficiently recognized based on each evidence of the ruling.

Therefore, the above argument is not accepted.