Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On November 5, 2012, around 16:00, the Defendant appeared as a suspect of the case in which C filed a complaint against the Defendant due to the suspicion of injury at the Changwon Police Station and the Economic Team Office at the Changwon Police Station at Changwon-si, Changwon-si, and the Economic Team Office at the Changwon Police Station at the Changwon-si Office.

The defendant, who was an investigator in charge of the above case, was aware of the victim when the victim D, who was a police officer belonging to the above police station, was about the defendant's mind because the method of investigating the victim D, who was a police officer belonging to the above police station, was not about the defendant's mind.

B. Having received the pest test.

We can find out whether the Nychina test is subject to a survey even after the complaint is filed.

(h)record, recording, recording. It shall be necessary to grow up to be raised as a police officer on the basis of the low-income year." and this year shall be prepared as to whether he or she is subject to examination.

In anywhere, there is a year in which no matter is available.

For the purposes of neutrality:

(h) the content of the recording would not have been known if any; who was erroneous;

Along with money, the victim was openly insultingd by referring to the so-called fish-gu weather year, dynasium, dynasium, and gynasium.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Sound CDs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (to listen to voice files);

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 crime of this case on the ground of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not limited to the fact that the defendant personally insultings the victim, but the crime of this case is very poor in terms of obstructing the legitimate execution of duties by a criminal investigation agency by a common speech and behavior contrary to sound social norms.

However, it is true that the defendant's mistake is recognized, and that the police officer's defense does not properly accept it while being investigated as the defendant.