The determination of punishment (1.5 million won) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts as to the offense of insult against victim D in the lower court recognized this part of the facts charged at the lower court. The victim’s statement by the police support the Defendant’s confession statement in the lower court. The Defendant reversed the confession statement in the appellate court, but it is difficult to view that there is sufficient evidence to accept or support the reversal statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do17869, Oct. 13, 2016). In so doing, the lower court’s judgment that recognized the Defendant’s obsting of the victim’s desire and insulting the victim, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The victim made a statement corresponding to this part of the facts charged.

The testimony of witness F is supported by the victim's statement.

There is no reason to believe that the victim's statement is not reliable.

The judgment of the court below that recognized that the defendant insultingd the victim by speaking the victim as a large amount of the facts constituting the crime in the Csports Center Health Stymnas and E boxes, there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the lower court sentenced a penalty less than a fine of two million won (a fine of two million won) in a summary order.

The punishment seems to be determined by taking the criminal records, criminal background, etc. of the defendant as the sentencing factor.

There is no change in sentencing elements in the appellate court.

Although the sentencing criteria do not apply to the case of a request for formal trial against a summary order, even if this court examines again the sentencing factors, and other factors of sentencing which are set forth in the sentencing criteria for the offense of insult, the decision of the original court is unreasonable.

3. The appeal by the defendant is without merit.

The dismissal under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is dismissed.