A. Although the defendant, as stated in the judgment of the court below, did not have a misunderstanding of facts, he was guilty of the facts charged in this case, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as a whole, i.e., ① from the investigation agency to the court of the court below, the police officer sent to the scene with a traffic accident report and asked questions about the witness's circumstances, Defendant E, a witness of the accident, and continued to give a bath to the police officer, and even though the police officer stated that "I would like to take a bath to the police officer, and if I would like to take a bath at the place so reported, I would be able to establish a crime of insult." During that process, I consistently stated that "I would like to take two times by hand the defendant's hand," and ② in the court of the court of the court below, witness F expressed that "I expressed a desire to the police officer who asked the witness's witness's witness's situation, and during that process, I would not have any contact with the witness's chest when I pushed the police officer's secret," and thus, the Defendant's argument in the judgment of the court below is sufficiently justified.

B. The instant crime on the assertion of unfair sentencing is punishment for police officers E and trial expenses who are called up by the Defendant after receiving a traffic accident report and ask the witness for the background of witness, and the relevant case is not less complicated, and in order to establish a state’s legal order and eradicate the light of public authority.