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

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

Punishment of the crime

1. Around August 30, 2018, the Defendant insultingd the victim by openly insulting the victim by referring to “the victim D, a police officer belonging to the said district group, who was receiving a report that “the Defendant was frighting on a taxi and frighting on a taxi,” on August 30, 2018, in order to verify the facts by the victim D, who was a police officer belonging to the said district group, who was a police officer, of the said district group, when the victim frights the horses, frights, E, etc., of the bit of bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch xch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch mar, Chewing, and breach bitch bitch

2. The Defendant violated the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, at the time and place specified in paragraph (1), and had a police officer, under the influence of alcohol, engage in a riotous and disorderly speech and behavior, such as talking to the police officer with a large sound, “hinging, singinging,” which reads “hing, singing, and drinking.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Witnesses D and E's respective legal statements;

1. The letter of arrest of a flagrant offender;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reports;

1. Relevant Article 311 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 311 of the Criminal Act, and Article 3 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (the point of disturbance for cancellation at the government office and the selection of fines);

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act among concurrent crimes (within the scope of adding up the maximum amount of the above two crimes to the punishments prescribed for the offense of insult heavier than the punishment)

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

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserts that the defendant's act of insult and revocation of the indictment was conducted in the course of resisting the victim's arrest of the flagrant offender, on the premise that the arrest of the flagrant offender was illegal, and thus, the defendant's objection constitutes self-defense.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, namely, the taxi E, which had been in the C district with the Defendant, are the same.