Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. The lower court’s judgment (i.e., the insult of June 14, 2016) 1 is consistent with the Defendant’s use of somewhat indecent expressions. However, it does not constitute insult, since the Defendant’s use of a false and indecent expression is limited to a warning and warning statement on the victim who defends the illegality and corruption of an apartment occupant’s representative meeting. As such, it does not constitute insult, and even if the offense constitutes insult, the Defendant does not violate

misunderstanding was made.

2) The Defendant’s act to defend unfair infringement, such as criticism and insult against the residents of apartment 117, or the act of defense and resistance against such infringement, which is a self-help act, is excluded from illegality.

B. The accusation submitted by the complainant (around June 19, 2016) of the lower judgment (around June 19, 2016), the date, name and seal of the complainant are omitted, and the submission agency differs from the actual one. As such, there was a legitimate accusation as to this part of the facts charged.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) Expressions, such as “Tyman’s writing writing”, “disist,” etc. cannot be deemed as an insulting speech that may undermine the social evaluation of the victim’s personal value. Even if such expressions constitute insult, illegality is excluded as a legitimate defense, self-help, or legitimate act.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the defendant's grounds for appeal prior to the judgment.

The Defendant filed each appeal against the judgment of the court below in the first and second instances, and this court decided to hold a joint hearing of the above two appeals cases.

Each crime of the first and second judgment against the defendant is in a concurrent crime relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single punishment shall be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, since the defendant's misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles against the judgment of the court of first and second instance is still subject to the judgment of the court of this Court, the following is examined.

B. Defendant’s assertion