Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant committed the crime of March 16, 2017: (a) around 15:00 on March 16, 2017, while there are alcoholic beverage delivery staff E in the D cafeteria located in the permanent residence C around 15:00, the Defendant prevents the Defendant from conducting funeral services here to the Victim F.

“Publicly insulting the victim.”

2. The Defendant, on June 7, 2017, revised and recognized “two persons, such as customers G, etc.,” as stated in the facts charged to the extent that around June 7, 2017, the Defendant did not pose a substantial disadvantage to the Defendant’s exercise of the Defendant’s right of defense at the above D cafeteria, to the extent that the said D cafeteria or H does not pose a substantial disadvantage to the Defendant.

Among the victims, the victim F made a public insultd the victim by openly referring to the victim F, “Cyp hyp hyp hyp and divorce, this male and low male hyp hyp, and hyp hyp hyp for the same year.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the witness F, E, and H;

1. Application of statutes on police statements made to F, E, and H;

1. Relevant Article 311 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment, and the choice of fines for the crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

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 assertion is that the Defendant did not wish the Victim F to do so as stated in the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court with respect to the crime committed on March 16, 2017, namely, ① the victim has consistently stated the contents and actions of the Defendant from the investigative agency to the present court specifically and alternatively, and ② E, “When the victim has delivered alcoholic beverages to the D cafeteria, the specific contents are not memory, but the Defendant did so by raising the victim’s speech in the restaurant, and the Defendant got out of the restaurant after diving.”