The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant knew of the fact that he had destroyed capital reduction on the street as a motor vehicle and caused it to a fraud, and only caused it to the police officer F who was dispatched to the police at the time by continuing to desire to reach an agreement with the street store. The above police officer's mistake that he was to prepare a written confirmation and mispercing the police officer's mistake that he would have caused it to go to the police's delivery of a written confirmation, and that he would arrest a flagrant offender in the line of duty with the Defendant's pension, "a person who would be issued a written confirmation", "a person who will be arrested in the line of duty", and "a person who will be arrested in the line of duty in the line of duty" as a mixed-level.

However, the above police officer arrested the defendant as an offender in the crime of insult without meeting the requirements for the arrest of a flagrant offender, which constitutes an illegal arrest.

Therefore, the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant did not have the intention of insult, and even if there was an insulting part among the expressions made by the defendant, it does not violate social rules, and therefore there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of assessing the credibility of a witness’s statement in light of the contents of the first instance court’s ruling and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court, there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the witness statement made by the first instance court was clearly erroneous or further made between the result of the examination of evidence in the first instance and the date of the closing of argument in the appellate court.