Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

At around 20:00 on August 30, 2013, the Defendant: (a) when she sited, scamed, scamed, and scamed on the upper corner of “D” located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; (b) when the Defendant received a report from E, the owner of the said main shop; and (c) reported to the police officer F, who was dispatched, to the neighboring residents, by using a large sound, that the Defendant “a breath, breath, breath, bit of bitch, bit of bitch,” and openly insultinged the police officer F, the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of the respective statutory statements made by witnesses F, G, E, and H to the Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 311 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense and Article 311 of the Selection of Punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The Defendant asserts that the illegality of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is excluded by a legitimate act that does not violate the social rules. The Defendant asserted that the police officer, who was dispatched to the Defendant’s business report, could be punished for interference with business, even though the Defendant did not interfere with business. The police officer took care of the offender and took a bath in the process of protesting against it.

In light of the following facts: (a) the victim’s status and the developments leading up to the dispatch, the background leading up to the Defendant’s hump to the victim, and the details of the hump, etc., the above circumstance alone is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s hump to the victim’s hump to the victim constitutes a legitimate act that does not violate the social norms, and thus, the above assertion is without merit.

Parts of innocence

1. The summary of the facts charged lies with I, J, and K on August 30, 2013, the Defendant called that the victim E (ma, 46 years old) who is the main owner of the above main store in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul et al. is unable to enter other customers because he/she goes to a different place while he/she sits together with I, J, and K on the table set up in front of the main point of “D” located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul.