The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

In this case.

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1) The Defendant did not mean that “I would soon see this promptly, so as not to sell the body.” (hereinafter “the instant speech”).

2) The Defendant made the above speech

Even if there was no performance in the above speech, there was no performance.

3) Of the above remarks, the part that “the body is not dead” is nothing more than the expression of a political intent, rather than the expression of an insulting intent. B. The sentence that the lower court rendered for an unfair sentencing (one million won per punishment) is too heavy.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. 1) Whether the Defendant made the instant statement was clearly erroneous in the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial in light of the spirit of substantial direct psychological principle adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act

Unless there exist special circumstances to view that maintaining the first instance court’s judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial is clearly unfair, or in full view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of the additional examination of evidence conducted until the closing of oral argument in the appellate trial, the appellate court shall respect the judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). 2) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of insulting the victim by taking account of the evidence duly adopted by the lower court, including the witness F’s legal statement, etc., and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court.

Examining the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable even if examining the witness G’s testimony by the lower court, and otherwise, the lower court’s judgment on the credibility of the witness F’s legal statement.