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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who serves as a taxi engineer from D where the victim C is a representative director.

The Defendant, at around 09:52 on December 12, 2016, after receiving the form of reinstatement from the staff G who worked in the D office located in Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, the Defendant opened the president’s office and received the payment of the amount of employment insurance and health premiums from the victim, while the Defendant heard from the said G, he/she shall cryp the victim, and he/she shall cryp him/her to leave the inside of the musical business owner with his/her width, and whether he/she is flick-gu, and whether he/she is flick-gu;

Human response is a life.

The victim publicly insultingd the victim by stating that he/she should work in this bad morals.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statements by witnesses C and G;

1. Application of investigation reports (in relation to D office photographs and field maps), field photographs, and field maps to statutes;

1. Relevant Article 311 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The alleged defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant did not insult the victim as stated in facts constituting a crime, and that his/her defense counsel does not recognize performance.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence in the holding as to the first argument, since the defendant sufficiently recognized the fact of insulting the victim as stated in the facts constituting an offense, the defendant and the defense counsel's assertion is not accepted.

B. Second, even if the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court is based on the following circumstances, i.e., the relationship between G respect and trust for the victim, G is only a company employee employed by the victim (the facts, such as the size and character of the company, the status of G and the victim, are different from the judgment submitted by the defendant's defense counsel after the conclusion of pleadings).