A. The Defendant (the lower court’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the guilty portion) did not insult the victim as stated in the lower judgment.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

A. Prosecutor 1) In light of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor including the victim’s statement as well as the victim’s statement, it is found that this part of the facts charged is guilty.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) In light of the fact that the Defendant’s wrongful assertion of sentencing did not take measures to recover damage while denying his/her criminal act, and that the Defendant has a history of criminal punishment for a total of times, the sentence (200,000 won) that the lower court sentenced is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant demanded the Defendant to pay the victim money as stated in the lower judgment’s judgment, while giving rise to an appraisal, and sufficiently recognized the fact of insulting the victim.

The defendant's assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles is without merit.

1) On October 29, 2013, the Defendant visited the victim’s residence without a prior notice from around 21:00 to around 21:00 to pay off the victim’s extended amount instead of about 30 years prior to the visit.

“A dispute was punished with the victim upon the request of the Court.”

In the process, the victim has become a dead state of appraisal.

2) The witness F of the lower court, who is in an objective position, demands the Defendant to pay money to the victim at the time and place indicated in the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the lower judgment.