D. There is no fact that her husband made a statement that she would have contracted the death of her husband with the death of the crime, who would be punished by imprisonment with her own food.

Even if the defendant made the above remarks,

Even if “I her husband was about to drink, her husband was killed, but her husband was sick, but it was why she did not attend the hospital;

n her husband’s words “to be punished by a fine as if he/she had been killed for a crime,” merely expressed that he/she would undermine the social assessment of the husband of the victim, not the victim, but rather the victim, and stated that he/she “a bond business operator” was insulting the victim.

subsection (b) of this section.

Although the court below found the defendant guilty, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below held that the defendant "I died of her husband, her husband died while her husband was sick, and why was why I did not attend the hospital;

n husband is subject to punishment on the part of the Defendant, who was killed in the crime, and was punished on the part of the Defendant. It can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant, who was recognized by the above evidence, said that the Defendant was the victim, in light of the circumstances and contents at the time of the said speech and its contents.

full recognition may be accepted.

Next, as to the assertion of misunderstanding legal principles, the insult referred to in the crime of insult and insult means the expression of an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that could undermine people's social evaluation without mentioning facts (Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3972 Decided November 28, 2003).