The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine) and the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the Defendant sufficiently recognized that the Defendant had expressed the victim’s desire to read “as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case,” “infinite,” “finite,” “finite,” and “finite,” and even

Even if it is sufficiently recognized that the expression "Cals" was made, and the expression of "Cals" expressed a light-defensive sentiment by specifying the victim, so the crime of insult is established, and thus, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case on a different premise is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rendered a judgment on the following grounds that the facts charged in the instant case constituted a case where there is no proof of a crime and acquitted the Defendant.

In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the statements in E’s investigation agency and the court of the lower court, which correspond to the facts charged in the instant case, are difficult to believe as they are, in full view of the following circumstances, to the effect that the victim took the desire to “the Defendant”, “the Defendant”, “the finite”, and “Cinch feb” from the Defendant.

1) Only from the time when the second investigation was conducted by the police, E took the bath view of the Defendant’s 'Magin’, 'Magin’ and 'Magman’.

The statement was commenced, and the first investigation did not make such a statement, and thus the statement is not consistent.

2) Among police officers who were at the site at the time of the instant case, there is no person who wishes for the Defendant to take the bath of “nick,” “nick,” “chron,” and “chron fe”.

3) E was assaulted by the Defendant

Although the statements were made, the statements on the method of violence are not consistent, and in relation to this part of the statements, the false statement was made by the prosecutor of the detection devices.