The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order for the victim of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles to comply with the insult of the defendant in a public manner, there was a fact that the defendant went to the D Office once, but there was no assaulting the victim as stated in the facts of the crime at the time of original adjudication.

The above act by the defendant constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules as stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below including the victim's statement in the court below's legal statement as well as the victim's allegation of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the facts of assaulting the victim, such as

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. It is reasonable to respect the allegation of unfair sentencing in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, based on the foregoing legal doctrine, determined the sentence by comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances as stated in its reasoning.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, and even if considering all the sentencing factors indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentencing of the lower court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.