A. Since the Defendant did not insult the victim as stated in the facts charged, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the fine of 1.50,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court duly admitted and examined the following circumstances based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the employee of the management office (facility engineer) stated in the court of the lower court that “the Defendant expressed her intent to drink” to the victim within the council of occupants’ representatives after the ballot counting has been completed, and the police also stated to the same purport; ② the employee F of the management office stated in the court of the lower court that there was five members of the election management office at the time of ballot counting, four employees of the management office, and one witness at the court of the lower court, including the Defendant. At the end of the election counting, the Defendant opened a door after the ballot counting and opened a door to 30 or more people, and the Defendant stated 1 and 20 or more people of the management office to the effect that “the Defendant expressed 0 or more people in the police office,” and the Defendant expressed 1 and 20 or more people expressed to the effect that they expressed to the same effect.