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

On February 2, 2014, the Defendant: (a) had been engaged in transactions with the victim E in Seongdong-gu Seoul on the early February 2, 2014 in Seongdong-gu, Seongdong-gu, Seoul; (b) according to the witness F’s legal statement, the Defendant took a bath for the victim in the presence of F and F father G; and (c) other employees of D were working in the position where it is difficult to hear the contents of the conversation between F and F; and (d) even if the Defendant corrected the other party who took a desire for the victim as above, it is determined that there is no substantial disadvantage to the Defendant’s exercise of the right of defense, and thus, recognized without any amendment to the indictment.

The term "E reargument, gugument," thereby openly insulting the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of written complaint of E;

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

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

1. Judgment on the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Even if the defendant expressed his/her defense counsel's assertion to F and G, performance is not recognized in light of the relationship between the victim, F and G, in which many unspecified or multiple people can recognize.

2. The public performance, which is the constituent element of the crime of insult, refers to the state in which an unspecified or multiple number of people can be recognized, as well as the performance that is the constituent element of the crime of insult. Although certain facts are publicly known to a certain person, if there is a possibility of spreading to an unspecified or many unspecified persons, then the requirement of public performance is satisfied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do340, Apr. 9, 2004). The determination of the possibility of dissemination ought to be based on various circumstances, such as the form and situation of the

According to the above evidence, F and G are victims.