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

The Defendant, at around 18:45, on April 14, 2013, destroyed the c apartment c apartment 3204 entrance of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, by means of putting off the cket for election campaign produced on the victim candidate side in his/her hand at the entrance of Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul, 3204.

"2013 Highly 3130"

1. On April 14, 2013, around 18:00 on April 14, 2013, the Defendant openly insulting the victim G, who was engaged in an election campaign for the president of the council of occupants’ representatives of the above apartment complex, by stating that “the victim G, who was engaged in an election for the president of the council of occupants’ representatives of the apartment complex, with only ten residents, such as E and F, around the community center located in the Eunpyeong apartment complex in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.”

2. At around 21:00 on May 10, 2013, the Defendant publicly insultingd the victim G by stating that 20 members including H, Dong representatives including H, and witness at the conference room of the council of occupants’ representatives of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government apartment housing, the Defendant read “unfiting, having reached the conclusion of the judgment” to the victim G.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Witness G, I, J, E, F, and K’s testimony;

1. Statement of the police statement of G, I, J, and D;

1. A complaint;

1. A statement of E, F, or K preparation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to skin photographs;

1. Relevant Article 36 of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 311 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of fines for the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant alleged that ① did not see the DNA candidate’s scamet, rather I did not take the scamet in the process of trying to take the scamet, ② did not constitute a crime of insult because he did not have a cambling, but ① the witness I and F stated that the Defendant appeared to have been scam in person by hand in order to prevent the Defendant from taking the scam from taking the scam in court, and the witness J held the scamet by the Defendant.