The defendant did not desire the victim, who is a police officer, to appear.

The judgment of the court below which recognized the offense of insult against the defendant is erroneous in misconception of facts.

Judgment

In full view of the following circumstances revealed through evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the victim, who is a police officer, was dispatched to the site of this case upon receiving 112 reports, and the defendant arrested the defendant on the ground that police officers, such as the victim, etc., expressed consistently to the purport that "the defendant had expressed much desire to the police officer in addition to the desire as stated in the judgment of the court below," and that "D and E, a neighboring merchant who appeared to witness the site of this case, have expressed a consistent statement to the effect that "the defendant expressed a great desire to the police officer in need of the dispatch," as stated in the judgment of the court below, the fact of insulting the victim is sufficiently recognized.

The judgment of the court below which recognized the offense of insult against the defendant is correct, and there is no illegality of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and all of the appeals are dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.