The court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. The judgment of the court below revealed the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the victim J consistently stated that the Defendant “I am Madon? I am Madon. L Madon” at the place where F and H are located, ② the witness Hdo and the Defendant “I am me soon present.” It is difficult to view the G organization’s external cooperation director as having a close relationship with the Defendant as having a close relationship with the Defendant, ③ the statement seems to correspond to the Defendant’s assertion, but L made a statement that seems to correspond to the Defendant’s argument. In full view of the following circumstances, the Defendant’s assertion that L is not a conversation between the Defendant and the victim, it can sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant publicly insultingd the victim by taking the victim’s abusive.

The lower court was justifiable to have convicted of the facts charged of the instant case.

3. According to the conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.