A. The Defendant cannot be deemed to have expressed a warning that could damage the social assessment of the victim even if he/she made the aforementioned remarks, on the grounds that he/she stated in paragraph (3) of the crime.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court on the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, K’s statement from the police to the effect that “K asked from the Defendant to the effect that “she was unable to use the me to find out the meat”, and H also stated to the effect that “the Defendant asked K to make the above remarks” in conversations with the police, it is recognized that the Defendant made the above remarks to K.

In addition, considering the circumstances where the defendant made the above statements and the contents of the statement, it shall be deemed that the defendant made the above statements damage the social evaluation of the victim and expressed sacrific sentiment. Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not acceptable.

B. In full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant insultings the victim over several occasions; (b) the victim has not been recovered from damage; and (c) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the commission of the crime; and (b) the sentencing of the lower court seems to be too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.