The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In other words, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant rendered a not-guilty verdict on a part of the bath part (hereinafter “the instant bath part”) on the grounds of the judgment even though the Defendant insulting the victim as recorded in the facts charged, and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 700,000) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. In a criminal trial for determining the assertion of mistake of facts, the burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient to cause a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, so if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt is against the defendant even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(2) The lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise, is difficult to view that the Defendant had proved without any reasonable doubt that the Defendant had taken the bath for the instant case at the time and place indicated in paragraph (1) of the lower judgment, and on the ground that there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

In addition, the court below's decision is just, and there is no violation of law of misunderstanding of facts alleged by the prosecutor, considering that the witness E stated that the defendant had expressed the desire of this case around May 2016, not the date and time stated in the facts charged.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of mistake is without merit.

3. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the court below is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Prosecutor asserts as grounds for appeal.