The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

A. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles did not insult the victim by making words such as the statement in the facts charged, and since there was no performance at the time of the act, the crime of insult is not established.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the circumstances revealed in light of the records of this case as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, that is, the defendant also recognized the victim as having committed an act that may pose a threat, such as the victim's first priority, as the defendant asserts, there is no evidence to deem that the victim had committed an act that could pose a threat, such as a mistake of facts and a misunderstanding of legal principles. In light of the fact that the witness F, G's testimony and the victim's statement are consistent with the main part, the court below is just and acceptable to determine that the defendant openly insultingd the victim among the security guards, etc. as stated in the facts charged, and it cannot be deemed that the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. The judgment of the court below is to take into account all the sentencing conditions stated in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the crime, etc., in consideration of the following: (a) there is no history on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing; (b) there was a long-term dispute between the Defendant and the victim due to noise; (c) the Defendant and his family members had not undergone serious pains; and (d) the cause of the dispute was not clearly identified; and (d) currently there was a director at a different place; (c) the Defendant committed the instant crime by contingently in the course of the dispute; and (d) the Defendant’s attitude and degree of