The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The grounds for appeal (in fact-finding, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing) did not state to the extent that “the Defendant was suffering from stresse, e.g., drug,” and did not state to “the same age as the person with mental illness,” as in the facts charged.

The punishment (fine 500,000) sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable in light of the circumstances of the case.

2. The facts charged of this case’s ex officio determination is a crime falling under Article 311 of the Criminal Act, which can be prosecuted only upon a victim’s complaint pursuant to Article 312(1) of the Criminal Act.

Meanwhile, the main text of Article 230(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "No complaint shall be filed after the lapse of six months from the date on which the person becomes aware of the offense subject to victim's complaint: Provided, That in the event of force majeure which makes it impossible to file a complaint, the date on which such cause ceases to exist." Here, the term "the person becomes aware of the offense" means the person who becomes aware of the offense and the offender to the extent that the person having the right to file a complaint can file a complaint in light of his/her ordinary position, and the person having the right to file

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do3106, Oct. 9, 2001; 2018Do1818, Jul. 11, 2018). In light of the records of this case, it seems that the complainant was clearly aware of the fact of insulting the Defendant on March 5, 2019, the date of the instant crime, and there is no special circumstance that the complainant could not file a complaint.

However, when the complainant was punished by a fine due to defamation against the defendant who occurred on the same day, he/she seems to have immediately filed a complaint with the public service center of the Gun/Gu office on September 10, 2019 after the six months have elapsed.

(A) On October 10, 2019, the complainant stated that no complaint was filed with an investigative agency with the same content as at the time the complainant was investigated. Accordingly, the prosecution of this case is limited to the time of filing the complaint.