The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination: The judgment of the court below on the ground of an unlawful appeal against the lack of reasons is examined as to the specification of reasons.

When a sentence is pronounced against the accused, the judgment shall clearly state the facts that the offense was committed in the past, the summary of evidence, and the application of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. When there is a statement of facts that are the legal grounds for the establishment of a crime, the aggravation of punishment, or the grounds for reduction of or exemption from punishment, the judgment on the sentence shall be clearly stated (Article 323 of the Criminal Procedure Act). According to the records, the accused asserted that Article 20 of the Criminal Act shall apply to the offense of insult in the facts charged in this case as the act of the accused does not contravene social norms (Article 163 pages of the record), and it is evident that the above assertion constitutes a statement of facts that are the grounds for

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of insult and sentenced a sentence, but did not decide on the defendant's above assertion. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles.

I would like to say.

The judgment of the court below shall no longer be maintained at this point.

B. As seen earlier, there are grounds for ex officio reversal of the reasons for appeal, but we also examine whether the sentencing of the court below is appropriate or not.

However, it is not determined that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable when examining the following factors: (a) some victims explicitly expressed the intention to punish, and the Defendant recognized all of the crimes when the Defendant was in the first instance trial; (b) the accumulated records of punishment for the same kind in the past; (c) the repeated criminal liability against a small-scale merchant; and (d) the Defendant’s age, sex, family environment, and other various sentencing conditions indicated in the pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, and family environment.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is ex officio.