For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court convicted the insult of the facts charged of the instant case.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the public performance in the offense of insult, or omitting necessary judgment.

In a written judgment, a judge’s signature and seal is one (Article 41 of the Criminal Procedure Act), and a judge’s signature and seal is not necessary until a copy of the judgment delivered to the accused is delivered to the accused (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3060, Jun. 28, 2007). In short, the lower court did not err by omitting the judge’s signature

The argument that the lower court erred by signing and sealing the judgment of the first instance court, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and omitting judgment is not a legitimate ground for appeal, which is alleged by the Defendant in the final appeal that there was no ground for appeal or that there was no ground for appeal subject to ex officio judgment.

The argument that the lower court’s determination of sentencing erred in violation of the principle of proportionality and the principle of equality of crime or the principle of responsibility by deviating from the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence is ultimately an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.