Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

A. In relation to the judgment of the court below 1 by misapprehending the facts and legal principles, the defendant did not directly make a statement to the victim, but made a statement to each other in the form of a mixed-level, so performance is not recognized, and the defendant's statement does not reach the degree of the offense of insult

The Defendant did not insult the victim in relation to the judgment of the court below of the second instance and the Defendant did not have a public performance because he divided the victim into the victim’s talk in the president room.

B. The punishment of the lower court (a fine of one million won in the judgment of the first instance, and a fine of five hundred thousand won in the judgment of the second instance) is excessively unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

The judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance filed an appeal against the defendant, and the defendant filed an appeal against them, and the court of the first and second trials decided to hold concurrent hearings of the above two appeals cases. The crimes of the first and second judgments against the defendant are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one punishment should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court of first and second trials cannot be maintained as they are.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles as to each judgment of the court is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. The Defendant alleged misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to the judgment of the court below of first instance shall give money to the person who believed the facts constituting the crime of the court of first instance.

(hereinafter referred to as “Nos. 1”) and a statement referred to in Section 2 “I, even if you were to come to know, I would like to know, but do not know, I would like to know.”

However, each of the above statements does not constitute insult, and in the case of the first statement, it is limited to F, and in the case of the second statement, it is limited to the mixed standard.