A. The judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the absence of credibility on the victim and witness’s statement that the Defendant did not insult the victim, and the Defendant expressed the victim’s abusive language, was erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles, or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

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

2. Determination

A. In light of the content of the judgment of the first instance court on the misunderstanding of facts and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial was clearly erroneous.

Unless there exist special circumstances to view that maintaining the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is significantly unfair, or in full view of the results of the first instance examination and the results of an additional examination conducted until the closing of argument in the appellate court, the appellate court may not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do7917, Jan. 30, 2009; 2006Do494, Nov. 24, 2006; 2013Do5029, Sept. 12, 2013). In light of the fact that the defendant publicly dived the victim and witness witness of the first instance court; and that the victim’s testimony made by the victim from the investigation agency to the witness’s testimony made by the investigation agency, the lower court’s consistent judgment on the witness and witness.

Therefore, the lower court’s judgment that recognized the Defendant’s crime cannot be deemed as an exceptional case where the maintenance of the lower court’s judgment is significantly unfair.