The defendant shall be exempted from punishment.

1. The defendant asserts that he did not insult the victim by threatening the victim D or taking a bath as stated in the facts charged.

(M) Defendant’s assertion of mistake of fact). Defendant asserted that the sentence of the lower court against Defendant (a fine of three million won) is too unreasonable for the Defendant, and the prosecutor asserts that it is too uneasible and unfair for the Defendant.

(The grounds of unfair sentencing by both parties). 2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination.

Where concurrent crimes prescribed by the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act before a judgment of the first instance was rendered after the judgment of the appellate court was rendered and a final and conclusive judgment to sentence punishment was rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, the appellate court shall ex officio reverse the judgment of the first instance and

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do15253 Decided January 13, 201, and Supreme Court Decision 2012Do9295 Decided September 27, 2012, etc.). According to the records, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for four years and six years for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act at the Suwon District Court on October 18, 2013, and on June 26, 2014, the above judgment became final and conclusive. Thus, the crime for which the said judgment became final and conclusive are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained in this respect, since the punishment is to be determined in consideration of equity in the case of concurrent judgment pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act by reversal ex officio.

However, even if there are the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the above argument of mistake of facts by the defendant is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined in the below.

B. The victim and E who observed the instant case from the investigative agency to the original court consistently stated that the Defendant had the same remarks as the instant facts charged to the victim.