The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The lower court found the Defendant guilty, even though the Defendant had not expressed the victim’s desire to take care of the gist of the grounds for appeal, erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a resident of BPublic Notice Center C, and the victim D (year 52) is a resident in the same Public Notice Center E, and around October 24, 2018, the Defendant made a public insult by openly insulting the complainant by putting the complainant among three to four persons, such as H, residing in the Public Notice Center G, and having three to four persons, such as H, who reside in the Public Notice Center G, on the ground that the victim smoked within the said Public Notice Center F.

B. The lower court determined that the lower court: (a) although the witness H did not make a statement in the investigative agency of the Defendant, it explained the circumstance in the lower court’s court; (b) the lower court stated in the court that the Defendant and the victim went to the main room located in the center of the third floor of the public notice board; and (c) the Defendant could distinguish the voice of the Defendant and the victim from the victim; and (d) the period during which H knew of the circumstances and period during which H became aware of the Defendant and the victim, deeming that H’s statement in the court of the lower court could be sufficiently believed, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charges by adopting the witness H’s legal statement and the existing statement in the complaint as evidence.

C. 1) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, including the evidence additionally adopted and examined at the trial court, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant insultd the victim by taking the victim’s desire as stated in the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. The remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient.