The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not inflict any injury on C, and did not insult the police officer F.

Nevertheless, the court below's judgment that found the defendant guilty on the grounds of the contradictory statement of the witness is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In the misapprehension of the legal principle, it is illegal for police officers to arrest the defendant as flagrant offender in the crime of insult, and the evidence created therefrom corresponds to reading negligence, and the police officer changed the protocol of interrogation of a suspect to make a false public document.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, it is hard to see that the court below's determination that recognized the credibility of each of the testimony made by witness C, F, and G, which is a valuable evidence supporting each of the facts charged of this case, is hard and acceptable, and it is reasonable to find the court below guilty of the facts charged of this case by the determination of evidence.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. The records on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine alone are unlawful to arrest the Defendant as an offender in the crime of insult by the police officers at the time of the instant case.

It is not sufficient to view that the police changed the suspect interrogation protocol to be prepared with false official document, and the evidence created by the arrest of the defendant in the act of committing the crime against the defendant was not admitted as evidence of guilt in this case.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

On the other hand, on September 24, 2015, the Defendant’s defense counsel asserted that there is no performance in relation to the fact of insult at the fourth trial date. This is not only a legitimate ground for appeal as a assertion after the lapse of the period for filing the statement of grounds of appeal, but also a ex officio examination.