For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged (excluding the portion not guilty of the first instance judgment).

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the victim’s specific crime of insult, the concept of “defluence”, and “act which does not contravene social norms” as prescribed in Article 20 of the Criminal Act, or by omitting judgment,

The facts charged of this case were not specified.

The argument that there is an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the public performance of insult in the judgment of the court below is not a legitimate ground for appeal, as it is asserted by the defendant in the final appeal that there is no ground for appeal or that the court below did not consider it as a subject of

Furthermore, even in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the public performance in determining the facts charged and the offense of insult.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.