The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (the mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles) was made by the Defendant at the time of the meeting so that the victim could smoothly proceed with the meeting by avoiding the disturbance while the meeting is in progress, as described in the facts charged.

Even if the above remarks were not appropriate, in light of the following: (a) community users did not write out the above remarks because it is not good between the Defendant and the victim at the time; and (b) community users thought that some of the community people did not constitute the extent that the victim would have filed a complaint against the Defendant, the above remarks do not constitute the expression of a sacratic sentiment that could undermine the social assessment of the victim.

Even if the above statement constitutes insult, considering the motive, content, evaluation of village people, etc. of the Defendant’s remarks, the facts charged in the instant case constitutes an act that does not contravene the social norms.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the offense of insult.

Judgment

In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, that is, there was about 100 village residents in the village general meeting held at the time B at the village community center; the defendant and the village residents around the victim appear to have directly made the above remarks of the defendant; ② the head of the community senior citizens prevented the defendant; ③ the defendant also stated that the victim was punished by the above remarks; ④ the defendant had the record of having already been punished as the crime of assault and insult against the same victim; and ④ the words “sorh value” in general and negative use, the above remarks constitute an expression that has damaged the victim’s personality value; and even in light of the progress of the community general meeting at the time, the above remarks do not constitute an act that does not violate the social rules.

Therefore, the facts charged in this case are examined.