2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the victim made a statement at the court below that is somewhat unclear about the place where the defendant took a bath, but the investigative agency and the court below consistent from the investigation agency to the court below, specifically stated the circumstances where the defendant took a bath, the contents of the defendant's bath, etc., each of the statements made by E at the investigation agency and court of the court below correspond to the victim's above statement. At the court below, the defendant also recognized the facts that he went to the management office at the court below, and the victim made a speech similar to the abusives ("Chewings") mentioned in the judgment of the court below at the court below at the court below, and the victim filed a complaint against the defendant as a crime of insult and crime of interference with business after three months from the date of the crime of this case. However, the victim's assertion that the victim had long time to file a complaint due to the crime of interference with business at the same time, etc. is not acceptable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, the application of the written judgment of the court below is obvious that the term "Article 70 (1) of the Criminal Act" in the term "Article 70 (1) of the former Criminal Act" is a clerical error in Article 70 of the former Criminal Act before the amendment by Act No. 12575 of May 14, 2014. Thus, the ex officio correction is made in accordance with Article 25 (1)

.