A. The phrase that the defendant saw the victim's position does not contravene social norms and thus, the illegality is excluded by Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

B. The Defendant did not demonst monitor the amount of damage, and there was no error in calculating the amount of damage.

(c) Even if a person is guilty, the lower court’s penalty of KRW 700,00 is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the background leading up to the instant case acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the situation at the time, and the content of the statement by the Defendant, etc., the Defendant’s speech constitutes an anti-defensive expression that could undermine the social evaluation of the victim. Therefore, the Defendant’s act is sufficient to constitute a crime of insult, and such an act does not constitute a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of legal principles is without merit.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the defendant destroyed the market price of 230,000 won as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below is sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

C. There is no previous difference between the Defendant and the Defendant’s previous decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and there is no previous difference between the fine and the Defendant’s motive to commit the instant crime, and there is some circumstances to consider the Defendant’s motive to commit the instant crime.

However, considering the fact that the Defendant still did not reflect his mistake, the circumstances, means and consequence of the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, and other circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character, conduct and environment, the lower court’s sentence is too excessive.