A. Since the Defendant opened the mail of the victim, which was mistakenly delivered to his residence, from a business management perspective, the opening of the letter out of the facts charged in the instant case constitutes a legitimate act and thus, the illegality is avoided.

B. As the lower court did not accept the allegations of the parties related to the offense of insult among the facts charged in the instant case and found the Defendant guilty, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the assertion.

2. Determination

A. The defendant argued the same purport in the court below's judgment, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail in the column of "judgment on the defense counsel's assertion". In light of the records, the court below's judgment is just and acceptable, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

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

B. Article 323(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the assertion of omission of judgment is the reason to be indicated in the conviction, and in addition to the reason stipulated in Article 323(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, if there is a statement of the fact that is the reason to deny the establishment of a crime by law or that is the reason for the increase or decrease of punishment, the judgment should be clearly stated.

Article 361-5 subparag. 11 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “Where the judgment on the above assertion is not clearly stated, the grounds for appeal for “when the grounds for the judgment are not attached” are applicable.

However, the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s act cannot be seen as insult or there was no criminal intent to insult in the instant case is merely a mere denial of the constituent elements of the insult crime, and its judgment should be clearly stated.