A. In other words, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on factual misunderstanding is an abnormal timber that the Defendant seeks to treat another person only with a flag of another person to his/her mother.

“The phrase “ constitutes insult,” and such remarks do not contravene social rules.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles and the circumstances properly explained by the court below in comparison with records, it is difficult to see that the Defendant’s statement constitutes an insulting speech, and even if it constitutes an insult, it does not violate the social rules.

The judgment of the court below is justified.

3. There is no significant change in circumstances to consider the sentencing of the defendant after the judgment of the court below regarding the unfair argument of sentencing.

In addition, considering the conditions of sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments of this case and the reasons for sentencing of the lower judgment, even if the prosecutor considered all the circumstances asserted on the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed unfair on the ground that the prosecutor’s appeal is unfolded.

We do not accept the prosecutor's improper assertion of sentencing.

4. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.