A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

At around 10:30 on September 1, 2013, the Defendant publicly insultd the police officers at the same time on the D’s street located in Daegu Suwon-gu, and on the ground that there is no defect in citizens’ 3-4 people who were exposed to and do control over the E zone of the Suwon Police Station E zone in the patrol, and on the 3-4 premises where there are 3-4 people.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on witness G and F’s respective legal statements;

1. Article 311 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. The portion not guilty of Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the detention in a workhouse;

1. On September 1, 2013, at the E-district of the Suwon Police Station around 11:15, the Defendant, the summary of this part of the facts charged, saying, “The Defendant, at the E-district of the Suwon Police Station, continued to have 7-9 police officers assigned the same police officer, and told the police officers openly insult the said police officers at a large amount of her flasing flac with the flavoc intent to

2. The “public performance” in the crime of insult means the state in which many, unspecified or unspecified persons can be recognized. Thus, if there is a possibility that a certain fact about a specific person might be disseminated to an unspecified or unspecified person, it shall be deemed that the requirements of performance are satisfied, or if there is no possibility of spreading any other fact, it shall be deemed that the public performance is lacking.

(See Supreme Court Decision 66Do179 Decided April 19, 196, and Supreme Court Decision 83Do49 Decided April 10, 1984). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the location where the defendant took a bath around September 11, 2013 is inside the E-district office, the victim who was a police officer and the police officer of the same police officer were only 7-9, and there was no other person including the civil petitioner, and the victims’ volunteer police officers were within the E- Zone.