Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B shall be punished by a fine of 700,000 won.

Defendant

B.

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles have made the expression “bris” among the facts charged in the instant case, but no other bath theory was made. Defendant A’s expression “bris” is somewhat unfavorable to the other party’s flag, or is not an insulting crime under the Criminal Act, and is a justifiable act that does not go against the social rules in light of the developments leading up to the occurrence of the instant case. (ii) The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (De Facto Error) did not at all take a bath as described in the facts charged, and only stated that Defendant B told Defendant B “do have taken a bath” at the time of communicating with F, and there was no insult of Defendant A by making a speech as described in the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. The fact that Defendant A made a judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is recognized by Defendant A as “bris” in a restaurant, and the fact that Defendant A continued to take place outside the restaurant and took a bath as described in the following facts charged can be sufficiently recognized according to the statement made at H and G investigative agencies in an objective position.

In addition, Defendant A’s abusive act, as recorded in the facts charged, indicated in the facts charged, is an act of openly expressing an abstract value judgment that destroys the other party’s personality, and thus constitutes a crime of insult under the Criminal Act, and it is difficult to view it as a justifiable act that does not violate the social norms on the ground that the issue of a sensitive child was caused.

The judgment of the court below cannot be deemed to have erred by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles as alleged by the defendant A, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In full view of the grounds for sentencing indicated in the instant argument and records regarding Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s sentence includes various grounds for sentencing alleged by Defendant A.