Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On September 15, 2017, the defendant of "2018 High 443" was heard by a large number of traffic participants D from a police officer who was reported on September 21, 2017 at the street in front of Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul, and was dispatched on September 15, 2017.

of the corporation.

C. On several occasions, the victim was openly insultingd by “the police officers of this fargue,” etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (verification of motion pictures at the time of crime);

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. The part dismissing a public prosecution under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act against the order of provisional payment

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: “The Defendant, around September 21, 2018, 446, committed an act by approaching a female under the influence of alcohol in front of Mapo-gu Seoul, Mapo-gu, Seoul (E, 25 years old) on September 15, 2017 and committing an act, such as putting up, etc.; and he was asked the victim D of the police officer affiliated with Mapo-gu police station, who was dispatched to the site upon receiving a report 112, to ask questions about the on-site situation from the victim D, i.e., the Defendant reported the said victim “., us was reported.”

of the corporation.

The victims were openly insultingd by openly fluoring the victim, such as “fluor fluor fluor”, “fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor” and “fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor.”

2. According to the records of judgment, this part of the facts charged is identical to the facts charged in this case’s 2018 and 443, which previously instituted the prosecution, and thus, the prosecution on this part constitutes double prosecution.

Thus, this part of the public prosecution is dismissed by Article 327 subparagraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it constitutes "when a new public prosecution is instituted against a case in which a public prosecution is instituted."