The police officers reported that the instant musical instruments are engaged in business by selling alcoholic beverages and employing singing machines, and the police officers controlled Defendant’s singing. The police officers confirmed that Defendant’s instant musical instruments did not have any musical instruments, and even if they confirmed that Defendant’s musical instruments did not have any musical instruments, the police officers sent the Defendant’s visual view of the deliberation that Defendant’s musical instruments did not have any musical instruments.

Accordingly, in the process of the defendant's protest against police officers, the defendant only expressed his/her desire to make a mixed-clock, and "victim E" or "victim" is called the victim police officer.

(1) The lower court determined that the Defendant had intentionally expressed a desire to insult the victim by misunderstanding the facts. The Defendant withdrawn his assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the first trial date in the appellate trial. Even if the Defendant did not so, the lower court’s penalty of KRW 1,00,000 (hereinafter “fine 1,00,000”) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly adopted and examined evidence regarding the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the victim expressed in the court of the lower court that “I would like to bit bit bit bit bit bit bit bit bit bit bit bit bit bit bit bit bit bit bit,” and stated that the Defendant would have made the victim feel the above bath, and (ii) the police officer F at the time of the crime of this case stated in the court of the lower court that the Defendant would have expressed to the effect that the Defendant would not make the mixed-level bit bit son, but would have expressed to the effect that the Defendant would take a bath to the victim rather than the victim; and (iii) the video taken the scene over 30 seconds, the Defendant did not have recorded the bit bit bit bit bit bit