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 was the resident of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwanak-gu apartment, and was the Self-Governing Chairperson of the above apartment until April 2017.

The victim D is currently the self-governing chairperson of the above apartment.

On April 19, 2017, the Defendant, at around 20:30 on April 20, 2017, discussed the issue of parking of a victim and an external vehicle in the same place where several representatives, such as the victim, E, and F, gather to vote for the Self-Governing Chairperson in the above C Apartment House, but did not obtain a majority support in the self-governing Chairperson’s voting, “A person who does not have such conscience head, act as his representative;

I believe that it has been able to understand even though there has been a majority of the present.

Along with this, the victim was openly insultingd by expressing it to the large stale, “h.h.h.h.h.h.h.h.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the prosecution with regard to D;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. A complaint filed in D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing recording records;

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

1. The gist of the argument is as follows: although the Defendant made a statement as stated in the facts charged at the time of the instant case, there is only the representative, and thus there is no performance, and the victim’s act of in-depthness is pointed out, and its illegality is excluded as it constitutes a justifiable act under the Criminal Act.

2. Determination

A. We examine the assertion of performance.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the statement in this case was made by ten representatives of apartment complexes to gather the chairperson, and there were many and unspecified persons, and performance is recognized even if there are certain limits to the qualifications of the majority (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do3292, Feb. 28, 1984, etc.). Thus, the assertion that there is no performance.