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

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the wife of C, who is a member of the family-friendly council.

At around 15:00 on January 20, 2019, the Defendant publicly insultingd the victim F by openly referring to the victim E, who is not a member of the clan Association, in the place where 30 or more relatives of the family in the second floor of the building in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, have a son, who is not a member of the clan Association.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of G and H;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to accusation and approval for long-term care;

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

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

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Summary of the assertion

A. The non-existent victim F had difficulty in basic communication or dialogue due to the symptoms of dementia at the time of the instant case.

Therefore, the damage did not have the ability to recognize the damage and did not know or understand the content of the case.

In light of these circumstances, the victim should be deemed to have no capacity to file a complaint at the time of filing a complaint, and the indictment of this case based on it is unlawful without a legitimate complaint by the victim.

B. There is a fact that the Defendant, at the time of the absence of insult, made a statement of the facts charged (hereinafter “instant statement”) at the scene.

However, considering the background, frequency, and overall context of the instant speech, the instant speech cannot be deemed as a speech that may undermine the social evaluation of the personal value of the victim, and it cannot be deemed that the expression constitutes a speech to the extent that the said expression is somewhat vague and that it would mislead the victim’s speech, and that the expression is too broad, and that the victim’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son is not an objective crime of insult.