The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below which judged otherwise is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, in the absence of a fact that the defendant did not have any interview with the victim, and there was no fact that the victim made an insulting speech.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the judgment of the court below and the court of the trial, the victim consistently stated that “the defendant was bread to drink and take a bath as stated in the facts charged, at the same time and at the place as indicated in the facts charged,” and H, the owner of the D main shop, also stated that “the defendant continued to take a bath at the J main shop located at the D main shop and his wife without any justifiable reasons, and reported him to 112, and the police officer called to the police officer so that the defendant was sent to the police officer to call.” The victim’s statement is consistent with the victim’s statement.

The following facts and circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence mentioned above, namely, the victim and K, the police officer of the Yongsan Police Station F District, were arrested the defendant as a flagrant offender committing insult around 00:30 on September 17, 201 as stated in the facts charged; on the same day, the defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender on September 17, 201; on around 01:55 on the same day, he was compelled to enter the defendant's father N because it is impossible for the police officer to investigate the defendant under the influence of alcohol at around 02:37 on the same day; on the other hand, the police officer sent the defendant to N, and later attended the defendant; on the other hand, the defendant was released under N's fidelity guarantee around 02:41 on the same day; according to the record in the 112 Incident Report Processing Table, D's day and time at around 112:00 on the same day and around 10:00 on the same day, D'.