Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a member of the Housing Reconstruction Association in the district, and the victim D is the president of the above association, and the victim E is the auditor of the above association.

On June 7, 2012, around 23:00 on June 23:0, 2012, the Defendant publicly insultingd the victim E and E by openly referring to the victim E as “Parithly Chewing, gree, and D 40 billion won, so that they can d and E, while the victim E, who is in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, is not aware of his name, in the Scam Market operated by the victim E.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of witness E, and legal statement of witness G;

1. Partial statement of witness E in the third protocol of trial;

1. Part of the police statement of E;

1. Complaints of D and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the settlement of meta-mail and 112 reported cases;

1. Article 311 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. The portion not guilty under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a member of the Housing Reconstruction Association in the zone C, and the victim D is the president of the above association, and the victim E is the auditor of the said association.

On September 15, 2012, around 10:30 on September 15, 2012, the Defendant insultd the victim E by openly referring to the victim’s “hacker Sicker Sicker, Chewing, Chewing,” while the victim E, operated by the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E, has been aware of his/her name.

2. At the time of the court statement, E appears to be confused with various facts experienced by the Defendant, stating to the effect that “The Defendant, while finding several times in the Smarkets as stated in the facts charged, he did not memory well, although he did not memory well,” on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant’s inquiry at the time of making a statement in the court statement; and (b) the date on which the Defendant sought and took a desire to find in the Smarket as stated in the facts charged; and (c) the date.