A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant only stated to the effect that a person committing a crime, such as a crime of destruction of a family, should not be elected as a resident self-governing member at the meeting of the resident debate as stated in the facts charged, and did not state that the Defendant was a crime of destruction of a family by specifying D. 2) There was no intention to insult D at the time

3) In light of the fact that the Defendant’s act does not violate social norms and is unlawful in the process of speaking to the effect that he/she strictly limits the qualification of a member of the residents’ self-governing council as a person without moral problems, in light of the fact that he/she made an expression as stated in the facts charged, and that the said expression was limited once, and that the degree of the said expression was not very serious. B. Punishment sentenced by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Regarding the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the assertion that the victim did not specify, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the record: (i) the head of the C Functional Organization as stated in the facts charged is only five and its size is small; (ii) the victim, including the victim, can easily be identified; (iii) the expression “family destruction crime” would have been known if the victim is aware of the fact that the victim was the victim; and (iii) E who was present at the discussion meeting of the residents’ meeting as stated in the facts charged, was aware that the Defendant’s statement was referred to as the victim; and (iv) it is reasonable to deem that the victim was the victim; and therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion as to the assertion that there was no intention of insult, as to the allegation that there was no intention of insult, is an intentional act of the victim.