The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is that the Defendant, on October 8, 2014, expressed in the facts charged, expressed in the victim’s abusive language or insulting the victim.

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor’s ex officio determination ( amendment to Bill of Indictment) refers to the date the Defendant first found the victim for the purpose of protesting against the wording of the lease agreement around October 17, 2014 in the first instance trial of the instant facts charged.

The victim submitted a written complaint to the effect that he/she was insulting on the day he/she first found, although he/she was unable to accurately memory the date, and stated to the same effect in the court of original instance. Thus, the point of time of the charge can be deemed to be specified to the extent that it does not infringe the defendant's right to defense.

“Application for Amendments to Bill of Indictment was filed,” and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court, and the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

Although there is a ground for ex officio reversal, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court with regard to the revised facts charged.

B. The lower court, upon examining the witness F as a witness, directly reported and observed the appearance, attitude, consistency, clarity, and accuracy at the time of the statement by directly examining the witness F, and there is credibility of the said witness F and D’s statement.

The decision was determined.

In light of the spirit of substantial direct deliberation adopted by our criminal litigation law, the appellate court shall respect the first deliberation decision on the credibility of the statement, except in extenuating circumstances. In light of the following circumstances, there is no circumstance to deem that the lower court’s decision that recognized the credibility of the statement by the said witness is significantly unfair.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, including the above witness’s statements.