Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100.

Punishment of the crime

On January 6, 2016, the Defendant, using smartphones 105 dong 1005 and 1005 on January 6, 2016, connected to the article, “E” and “E” to the article, “I would like to make the people to become a member of the people,” and is similar to the President, so that I would like to regard the people of the same female as the people of the people of the Republic of Korea.

“Preparation of comments as “,” and publicly insulting F (45 tax, South) as the complainant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written statement;

1. Evidential documents;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the report of investigation;

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 key issue of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is the order of provisional payment

1. The author argues that the defendant's assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel is limited to the degree of simply slandering the defendant's behavior, and it is difficult to view such an act as constituting a crime of insult.

2. The offense of insult under Article 311 of the Criminal Act is an offense that protects an external reputation, which means a social evaluation of a person’s value, and refers to the expression of an abstract judgment or a sacrific sentiment, which is likely to undermine a person’s social evaluation, without indicating any fact (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do229, Sept. 10, 2015, etc.). In this case, the Defendant referred the victim to “a single woman who would attract a person to a third party” through comments expressed by the Defendant. Here, the term “a” can be understood as meaning “one” generally, and such expressions can be seen as representing a sacrific sentiment that may undermine a person’s social evaluation in connection with the withdrawal of an election of a member of the National Assembly.

Therefore, since the defendant's act constitutes a crime of insult, we cannot accept the defendant's and defense counsel's assertion.