The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1) As to the insult of the Defendant’s insult on April 15, 2017 among the facts charged in the instant case, it is merely a delivery of the victim’s horses to the victim as they are, and at the time, there was no intention to insult the Defendant.

In addition, in addition to the above words, there is no memory that the defendant s/he expressed a desire to the victim.

2) Defendant 2 continuously experienced harassment along with the victim’s desire and resisting the victim’s claim for unjust public charges. As such, Defendant 2’s act constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules and thus constitutes a justifiable act.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty as to the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence (one million won in penalty) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant

A. 1) First, we examine the assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine that misleads or misleads a person into fact on April 15, 2017.

In other words, according to the following circumstances, which can be recognized by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, i.e., (i) the defendant committed sexual assault against the victim, including the victim’s dog, with the desire to do so at the time of the instant case, (ii) the Defendant’s sexual intercourse with the victim, including the victim’s dog, and (iii) the Defendant’s sexual intercourse with the victim’s sexual intercourse.

“The Defendant’s speech was made to the effect that it was “,” and ② although some of the above expressions of the Defendant’s statement took the form of delivering the contents to the wife of the victim, the Defendant’s de facto destruction is the victim.