The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

On May 28, 2017, at around 13:54, the Defendant’s 4 Jeju Vice-head of D convenience store located in Songpa-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Metropolitan City C Park, and the Defendant set up his / her Hadi field with the victim G, a police officer assigned to the F operation department of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, who had a horse dispute with the victim G, who was a police officer assigned to the F operation department of the Seoul Metropolitan City, and deemed that many unspecified people in the Republic of Korea, the Defendant insulting the victim by openly speaking, “I are frightd only if I are not d, anywhere, and you are not public officials, and the video is hick without being hicked.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness G and H;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to sound recording files, records, victim submission photographs, images produced by suspects, and sound recording materials;

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

1. Penalty fine of 500,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act of the Suspension of Sentence (The circumstances favorable to the defendant among the reasons for sentencing) (The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that there is no performance in the statement of the defendant.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court: ① the offense of insult is a public display of an abstract judgment that may undermine the person’s external reputation; thus, at the time of display, a third party is in a state where it is recognizable at the time of display, and it does not necessarily require a third party to recognize it (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934, Jun. 25, 2004). The place where the Defendant told the victim as criminal facts is the place where the victim was the same as the parking lot, and even though the place was the most inside of the parking lot, it was a redry which goes beyond the boundary of the parking lot.

Even if it is possible to pass around a parking lot, it is a place in which a third party can be recognized, and ② at the time of this case.