beta
Text
Defendant
A A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000 and by a fine of KRW 500,000, respectively.
The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
[2015 Highest 202] Defendant A, while carrying out a monthly club conference at a “F restaurant located in Sincho-si, Sincho-si, Ma on April 2, 2015, Defendant A, on the ground that the statement of the victim B (V) who is a member of the said club was not in mind, was not in mind. Defendant A expressed the victim’s desire to “pack the victim with the above club members “hack the same sing voice.” At the time when the victim made a statement on other subjects, Defendant A expressed the victim’s desire to read “I would have died when I were the male, and I would have this two years.”
[2015 Go fixed 67] Defendant B made a statement about the agenda at the F restaurant located in Sincho-si, Ma on April 2, 2015, and the 16 members of G club were present while Defendant B made a statement about the agenda at the meeting, Defendant B made a public insult of the victim on the ground that Defendant A made a statement about the agenda at the meeting, “packer” means “packer” and “packer’s sound is not the same.”
Summary of Evidence
[2015 Highest 202]
1. The defendant A's partial statement
1. Each legal statement of witness B, H and I;
1. Each police statement made with respect to B, I, and H;
1. Defendant A and his defense counsel stated that the phrase “the above Defendant “I” was written by the Defendant, but this was written by a mixed-level language, and there was no intention to insult, and the victim called “I would have died when I would have been dead,” before the police officer called the victim “I would have been sent to the police officer.” However, the police officer called “I would not have the desire of “I would have to be dead if I would have been a male. I would have been dead.”
The argument is asserted.
(1) However, from the beginning of the investigation to the time of this court, Defendant A took the same bath as the facts charged.
The statements are consistently made, and credibility is recognized in the statements, ② Defendant A also made a statement that “the police officer took the view before a clerical error was made,” at the time of making a statement as a witness of the case No. 2015 and No. 67, and the witness is a witness before a clerical error.