The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, insult is involved.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the insult of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, even though the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the public prosecution, since the victim FF submitted a written agreement to the lower court.

B. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness by drinking alcohol.

(c)

The sentence of the court below (4 months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Since the offense of insult of judgment as to the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles is a crime falling under Article 311 of the Criminal Act, which is subject to a victim’s complaint that may be prosecuted only upon the filing of a complaint under Article 312(1) of the Criminal Act, if the complaint was withdrawn before the pronouncement of judgment in the first instance court after prosecution, a judgment dismissing public prosecution ought to be pronounced pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure

According to the records, the defendant submitted to the court of the original judgment a written agreement to the effect that the defendant agreed with the victim on December 10, 2016, which was before the judgment of the first instance court was rendered after the prosecution of this case, and that "the defendant and the victim have agreed to do so, and thereafter they do not raise any civil or criminal objection thereafter," on December 23, 2016.

Therefore, since the injured party has withdrawn the previous intention to punish the defendant, it is reasonable to see that it has cancelled the complaint before the first instance judgment was pronounced after the prosecution was instituted.

Therefore, the court below should have rendered a judgment dismissing a public prosecution pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act with respect to insult of the facts charged in the instant case, but it found the defendant guilty, and found the remaining crimes as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and sentenced a single punishment.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, it is recognized that the defendant was in a drinking condition at the time of each of the crimes in this case, but each of the above crimes is committed.