A. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are not likely to undermine the social evaluation of the victim, and thus, they do not constitute insult to the defendant, and the defendant did not have the intention of insult, and there was no person who made a statement of the defendant without specifying the person at the scene. Therefore, performance cannot be recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and erroneous.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted that the mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles were identical to the grounds for appeal in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion by providing the judgment on the “judgment on the Defendant’s argument”.

Examining the judgment of the court below in comparison with records, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle on the assertion of unfair sentencing, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in a case where there exists a unique area of the first instance court concerning the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the materials submitted in the trial at the trial, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and comprehensively taking account of all the circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records and pleadings in this case, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable and thus, cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is justified.