A. It is difficult to view that the Defendant’s statement of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles that “it is an influence of the victim’s “an influence of an influent year” made by the victim was an satisfic sentiment to the extent

In addition, the Defendant directly made the above remarks to prevent the victim from causing disturbance in the meeting place, and there was no dolusent intention to publicly insult the victim. Even if not, in light of the overall context of dialogue between the Defendant and the victim and the circumstances surrounding the Defendant’s above remarks, the Defendant’s act is dismissed as a justifiable act, in view of the following: (a) the Defendant’s act is justified.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The insult referred to in the crime of insult in the crime of insult as to the assertion that does not constitute insult is an expression of abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that could undermine people’s social evaluation without mentioning the fact.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the expression “unfited per year” in itself constitutes an insult as an expression of an abstract judgment or a destructive sentiment that could undermine a person’s social assessment, and thus, the Defendant’s allegation in this part is without merit.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion that there was no willful negligence of openly insulting the victim. In other words, the Defendant stated that the victim was “feasible to the victim during the second quarter of the D second quarter of the Meeting of the Organization C,” including the victim at the time, and the chief of each division department of the area of 27 persons including the victim was present at the meeting, and ② the Defendant was able to have the victim during the meeting, and the Defendant was able to have been present at the meeting.