logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
전주지방법원 정읍지원 2016.04.26 2015고단613
모욕
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On November 7, 2015, the Defendant released any son F, who was a police officer, from the location where the victim, etc. of other cases and four police officers of the case, in the course of protesting that the Defendant reported to the Defendant’s wife E to the Defendant, but the police officer’s release of the Defendant’s wife E without his/her own permission.

The victim publicly insultingd the victim for about 20 minutes of bitch bitch bitch bitch.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. A complaint filed by the F;

1. A report on internal investigation (the details of the intended bath for the victim);

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

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 reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Criminal Procedure Act is not good for the crime of this case committed by the defendant who found his alcohol in the earth while drinking and expressed his desire to a police officer in the performance of his duties. The defendant has been punished several times due to the crime of violence in the past, obstruction of the performance of official duties, insult, etc., and the defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment on July 29, 2015 for the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual injury) on November 29, 2013. After the execution of the punishment was completed, he committed such crime even during the period of repeated offense, and at the request of this court, it is deemed that the prosecutor conducted in the investigation before the judgment was conducted in the Eup area of the previous state protection observation office at the request of this court that the defendant's recidivism of the defendant is considerably high.

On the other hand, however, the case is that the defendant was released from prison and is working in the workplace obtained through the job program.