가. 사실 오인 피고인은 이 사건 당시 “ 짭새 ”라고 말했을 뿐 공소사실 기재와 같은 욕설을 한 사실이 없다.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

가. 사실 오인 주장에 관한 판단 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들을 종합하면 피고인이 이 사건 당시 “ 짭새” 라는 말 뿐만 아니라 “ 주민이 만만해 보이냐

C. “Isk,” and “Isknman’s only for inhabitants

C. It can be fully recognized that a statement, such as “filch”, has been made.

In addition, it can be recognized that the defendant was a place in which the above horses were made open to the public, and that the time of this case was the time of attendance, and the vehicle and the driver frequently passed around the above place.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. In our criminal litigation law, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the principle of direct determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, there exists the unique area of the first instance trial as to the determination of sentencing. In addition, in light of the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance trial, and the sentencing of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, but the first instance judgment falls within the scope of the discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment and to refrain from imposing a sentence without any difference from the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the difference between the appellate court’s opinion and the lower court’s decision is somewhat different (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court’s sentencing conditions were not changed compared to the lower court’s submission of new data on sentencing in the first instance trial, and the lower court’s judgment’s determination is excessively beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.