All of the first and second original judgments shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

The defendant above.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding 1) The Defendant, as recorded in the first instance judgment (in a mistake of facts), did not spite the victim C as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the first instance court. (2) In the second instance judgment (in a mistake of facts), the Defendant, as recorded in the facts constituting a crime in the second instance judgment, did not spit the victim’s face or spit the victim’s face.

B. Each sentence of unfair sentencing (the first sentence: the fine of KRW 500,00, and the second sentence: the fine of KRW 1,000) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal prior to the judgment ex officio.

On the defendant, the first and second original judgments were sentenced, and the defendant filed an appeal respectively, and the above two appeals cases were decided to be consolidated and tried by the court.

The crime of each judgment of the court below against the defendant is one of the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one of the above judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is, since it is the concurrent crimes under Article 38 (1

However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On September 12, 2017, the lower court duly admitted and investigated the lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of the facts of the first instance judgment (the point of insult), namely, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, and the victim C accused the Defendant on September 12, 2017, which was not only from September 8, 2017, the date of the occurrence of the instant case, and on September 19, 2017, the police stated that “the Defendant expressed a desire to the same contents as the facts of the first instance judgment to himself/herself,” and the victim C consistently stated the facts of damage as stated in the said investigation agency’s statement in the lower court’s court. The victim C received the report at the time of the instant case.