The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant recommended the victim so as to be aware of his mind and treatment; (b) the Defendant did not make a statement identical to the facts constituting the offense of the lower judgment with the intent to insult the victim; and (c) the written statement D dated February 26, 2019 also supports this.

Nevertheless, the court below did not decide on the probative value of the D's statement, which is a core evidence, and adopted only the investigation report (the statement of security guards) stating D's statement as evidence, and found the defendant guilty. There is an error of misunderstanding of facts, violation of the rules of evidence, or omission of judgment.

The punishment of the court below (the fine of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In rendering a judgment on the assertion of omission of judgment, it is sufficient to specify the facts of crime, summary of evidence and the application of the law in the grounds of judgment (Article 323(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, if there is “a statement of facts constituting the grounds barring the establishment of a crime under law, or a statement of increase or decrease of punishment, or a statement of facts constituting the grounds of reduction or exemption”

(2) Article 323(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the court below did not make an explicit judgment on the D’s written statement, unless the court below explicitly stated the facts constituting a crime, the summary of evidence, and the application of the Act and subordinate statutes, and stated the grounds for rejecting the Defendant’s assertion at the bottom of “the summary of evidence”. It cannot be said that there was

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The lower court recognized the fact that the Defendant made the same remarks as the facts stated in the facts constituting the offense of the lower judgment, and determined that such remarks were sufficiently recognized as an intentional insult of insult, in light of the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, the background of the remarks, the language, and the overall context, and that such remarks were expressed by the Defendant, which could undermine the social assessment of the victim.

The court below duly adopted.