A. The Defendant, who was dispatched on the day of the instant case, talked with the police officer about the 112 reporting circumstances. However, the police officer, who attempted to look at the police officer, stated that “A,” was “A,” and there was no desire for the police officer to take care of the police officer. However, there was no desire to take care of the police officer.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of fact, the offense of insult is established when a person is openly insulting (Article 311 of the Criminal Act). It is a legal interest that protects an external reputation, which means a social evaluation of a person’s value. Here, insult refers to the expression of an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment, which is likely to undermine a person’s social assessment, without indicating any fact.

In addition, the offense of insult is established by openly expressing an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that may undermine the external reputation of the victim, and thus, the victim’s external reputation is not practically infringed or the risk of actual infringement is not caused (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2016Do15264, Apr. 13, 2017; 2016Do9674, Oct. 13, 2016). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s evidence duly adopted and examined the circumstances of the case by having the police officer E arrive at the scene after receiving 112 report that he/she had a taxi engineer and a Si guard and listen to the situation of the case from the Defendant, and “the receipt of the complaint for taxi service will be a multilateral call center,” and it is recognized that the Defendant expressed the victim’s desire to have the aforementioned police officer stated in the crime as criminal facts.

In addition, considering the above contents of the defendant's statement and surrounding circumstances at the time, the defendant thought that his civil petition is not accepted, and the defendant expressed a abusive expression toward the police officer's individual.