The part of conviction and the part of acquittal on October 25, 2018 shall be reversed.

The defendant is punished by a fine.

A. A. A prosecutor (1) misunderstanding the fact (the fact that the Defendant’s insultd on October 25, 2018) did not file for divorce against the victim G at the time.

With respect to horses, “I Don without think of their age, I am from 3 to 4 members at the time of the investigation stage to the original trial, even though P (former H) did not have consistently been directly from the Defendant from the investigation stage to the original trial.”

There is no reason to suspect the credibility of the statement consistently and specifically, and there is no reason to suspect the credibility of the statement.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact of innocence and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

B. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles did not make a statement that constitutes insult or false facts as to the facts constituting a crime, and even if such a statement was made for domestic affairs, it is difficult to recognize a public performance in view of the relationship between the victims and their audience and the number of audiences, etc. Even if such statement was recognized, the words and actions recorded in the insulting crime do not constitute insult under the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all of the facts constituting the crime in this part, or erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to insult or defamation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

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

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant and prosecutor prior to the judgment

A prosecutor shall change the facts charged as of October 25, 2018 among the facts charged in the instant case as of the third trial date (the reasons for the new judgment) and apply for an amendment to a bill of amendment reflecting the facts charged as of October 25, 2018, as shown in attached Table 1. Since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.