The guilty part shall be reversed.

Of the facts charged in this case, the insult of November 28, 2015 is relevant.

Defendant

The complainant filed a complaint with the Defendant on October 10, 2017, even though the Defendant was aware that he was an offender on November 28, 2015, which was on the day of the instant crime, on the day of the instant crime, on which six months passed thereafter, and thus, the prosecution on this portion is unlawful and dismissed.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the period of filing a complaint subject to victim's complaint.

It was true that misunderstanding of facts Defendant made a statement to the complainant on November 28, 2015 that he was replaced by fraud. However, since the airport was mixed at the time and other people did not hear the Defendant’s speech, it should be deemed that there is no performance in the Defendant’s statement.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on a different premise, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

Although there is a somewhat different difference in relation to the defendant's specific behavior, the prosecutor's statement of misunderstanding of facts (the fact of insult of each of the charges in this case as of July 21, 2017 and September 26, 2017) has consistency in the main part of the defendant's statement, such as the place, date, time, and contents of the statement.

Nevertheless, the court below found the complainant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the complainant's statement was not reliable. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

The prior meaning of fraud in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine (the fact of insult of July 11, 2017 among the facts charged in the instant case) can be deemed to have undermined a person’s social evaluation and expressed a destructive sentiment. As such, this part of the Defendant’s statement is an expression of abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that could undermine the social evaluation of the complainant, and thus, it is an insult as referred to in the offense of insult.