The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) The Defendant did not conclude that the Defendant was “a person who did not know about” the victim.

2) 피고인은 피해자에게 ‘ 똥갈보년’ 이라는 말을 한 사실은 있으나, 이는 피해 자과 그 일행들이 피고인의 주거지로 와서 욕설을 하고 행패를 부리는 과정에서, 위세에 눌리지 않으려고 ‘ 똥갈보 년 아 그만둬! ’라고 받아친 것에 불과하므로 모욕의 고의가 없는 행위이거나, 사회 상규에 반하지 않는 소극적 방어 행위로 정당행위에 해당한다.

3) In light of the relationship between the victim and others, the Defendant’s statement in the lower judgment is a statement that does not have a public performance.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In determining the credibility of a statement after the first instance court of the relevant legal doctrine proceeded with the examination procedure, the existence of credibility should be assessed by taking into account all the circumstances that make it difficult to record in the witness examination protocol, including the appearance and attitude of a witness, the penance of a witness who is going to make a statement in an open court after being sworn in the presence of a judge, and the penance of a statement, as well as whether the content of the statement itself conforms to the rationality, logic, inconsistency, or rule of experience, or conforms to the third party’s statement.

On the other hand, the appellate court's determination of credibility of the statement made by the witness in the first instance court under the current Criminal Procedure Act is based on the records including the witness examination protocol in principle. Thus, in determining credibility of the statement, there is an essential limitation that the appearance and attitude of the witness at the time of the statement that can be called one of the most important elements in determining credibility of the statement can not be reflected in the evaluation of credibility.

The above evaluation of the credibility of the first instance court and the appellate court.