The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant, although he did not insult the victim or physically injure the victim, the court below found him guilty of all of the facts charged in this case. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In light of the spirit of substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the first instance witness was clearly erroneous.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances to view that maintaining the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is significantly unfair, or comprehensively taking account of the results of the first instance examination and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted by the time the appellate trial ends, the appellate court shall respect the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006, etc.). In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, each legal statement made by the witness D, E, F, G, H, and I is relatively specific and natural in relation to the situation at the time of the instant case, and ② all the witness of the lower court present at the court to be punished for perjury, and ③ the statement made by the defendant is also deemed to have not shown any motive to make a statement differently from the facts in light of the fact that the defendant is able to prevent the victim from taking the floor outside the meeting place.

On the other hand, even though the defendant continued to commit the crime from the time when the police investigation was conducted, he was present at the representative meeting of the occupants of this case.

L has not made any statement at all in the investigation agency or the court of the court below, and it has been more than 1 year and 4 months later in the court of the first instance.