A. The Defendant had no misunderstanding of facts with the victim’s abusive language.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant made the same assertion as the grounds for appeal in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the judgment on the above argument in detail under the title “judgment on the argument of the Defendant and the defense counsel” in the judgment. We affirm the lower court’s judgment by comparing the above judgment with the records.

According to the results of the reproduction of video recording CD submitted at the court below, in addition to the fact that the victim and witness I of the court below's each statement were confirmed by the defendant, such as the defendant's words "a hole" to the victim and "a hole", there is an error of misconception of facts in the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case even if the evidence additionally submitted by the defendant is considered in the court below.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts is without merit.

B. In light of the fact that the sentencing is a discretionary judgment made within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the matters that are the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing is made within an appellate court’s ex post facto nature, etc., it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment in a case where there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared with the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance judgment falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment and impose a sentence that is not different from the first instance judgment solely on the ground that the sentence differs from the appellate court’s view (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).