The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (unjustifiable)’s punishment (a fine of KRW 300,000) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (not guilty part, and mistake of facts), the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though the defendant could sufficiently recognize the victim’s insult by voice “the head of Dong” as “the victim is the head of Dong.”

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. On July 18, 2012, the Defendant alleged that, at around 10:00 on July 18, 2012, the victim C, who is the head of the Dong, had approximately 15 village residents, made a false statement on several occasions in order to hold the village conference in front of the village hall in the Seongbuk-gun, Seongbuk-gun, Kim Jong-gun, the Defendant openly insultingd the victim by voice “Antoa is the head of Dong.”

B. The lower court determined as follows: (a) there was each statement of C and E as evidence consistent with the facts charged, but they experienced conflict with the Defendant in relation to the location of the village development fund that is scheduled to be paid to Gyeongbuk-gun in the Hanbuk-gun; and (b) around July 9, 2012, immediately before the occurrence of the instant case, it is difficult for the disputing parties to believe that E is a criminal charge for insulting the Defendant’s wife as a crime of insult and a criminal charge against E as a crime of insult; and (c) other evidence submitted by the prosecution alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant insulted C as stated in the instant facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently, and thus, acquitted this part of the facts charged pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

C. The term “defluence” as referred to in the crime of insult in the judgment of the political party refers to the expression of an abstract judgment or disfluence that may undermine a person’s social evaluation without mentioning the fact.

Supreme Court Decision 200 delivered on November 1, 2003