The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.2 million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though it cannot be deemed that D had exercised the tangible power to inflict bodily injury on the part of D in the process of cutting off D’s cell phone phones, and the degree of injury cannot be seen as the injury.

B. The Defendant, as indicated in the facts charged, did not have any insultd statement to D as in the facts charged, and at the time, the Defendant’s statement was made in response to the Defendant’s sexual insult, and the Defendant’s statement constitutes an insulting speech that could objectively undermine the social evaluation of personal values, and thus does not constitute an offense of insult. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, in so determining, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination:

A. The following circumstances are acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court of first instance as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the injury: (i) D, in the investigative agency and the court of first instance, opened up two separate stairs and set up a cell phone; (ii) “the Defendant got off the cell phone and set back the cell phone; (iii)” “the Defendant got back the cell phone; (iv) the cell phone was flicked to avoid damaging the cell phone; and (v) the statement that “the hand tree was set up with drugs prescribed and hot at the Ampha hospital” was stated in detail about the situation at the time; and (v) the situation at the time of this case as a witness again appeared in the court of first instance; and (v) D, in the court of first instance, it appears natural that the Defendant’s re-flicked the situation at the time of this case is more natural than the present situation at the time at the time of the trial; and (iv) the circumstances before, after and after the instant case.