Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Defendant A (Defendant A) is responsible for the position of the chairperson of the Village Development Promotion Committee in a village where the residence is located.

The F Village is divided into two plaques between those who return to return to rural communities and those who have been living in the F Village for a long time and those who have been living in the F Village, and the dispute has occurred, and the public awareness has deteriorated.

Defendant

A around 21:30 on October 14, 2014, in the course of the F Village special meeting to be dissolved outside the conference room after having an agenda, such as “a civil or criminal litigation case against the violation of the F Village Special Measures Act against the I 480-H land owner,” etc. at the H Experience room located in the Nam-gun G, Y, and the F Village special meeting is completed, a victim K who is the actual owner of the said land, must pay the land as “the ground is the same.”

Whether the land has not been found; or

The victim publicly insultingd the victim by referring to “the brupt of Domine”.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. Partial statements of the witness K, J or L among the three-time trial records;

1. Partial statement of the witness M in the fourth public trial protocol;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes containing part of the complaint;

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 A and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The testimony of the complainant and the witness of the complainant is not reliable.

2. According to the evidence as seen earlier, Defendant A, after the completion of the meeting on the facts constituting an offense, has a dispute over the ownership of the land indicated in the facts constituting an offense with the victim, and has expressed the desire as stated in the facts constituting an offense.

Unlike the above witness K, J, and L, unlike the part on Defendant B, relatively clearly memorys the part related to Defendant A (the above witness is not clearly specified in the court's abusive language, but at least is humbling the contents of the criminal facts.