The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) The Defendant did not say that “the Defendant would grow up with 30,000 won per hospitalization day” among the horses written in the facts charged.

2) The remainder of the remarks written in the facts charged cannot be deemed as expressions that can constitute a crime of insult in light of the background, content, and degree of the remarks, and there was no intention of insult. The place where conversations was made at the time is not recognized as a hospital rest room where the patients, 2, and 3 of their guardians watched TV.

B. In light of the legal doctrine’s circumstances where a defendant made a speech, the degree and proportion of expression, etc., the defendant’s act is excluded from illegality as an act that does not contravene social norms.

(c)

Sentencing is unfair because it is too unreasonable that the sentence of the lower court (300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On March 23, 2016, the Defendant, at around 17:00 on March 23, 2016, expressed a dispute about the handling of the damage adjuster B and insurance proceeds, etc. in the five-story area located in the Nam-gu Seoul Southernnam-gu University Hospital, and other patients have been heard by another patient, the summary of the facts charged is where the Defendant “I do not have the basic right to anywhere we live or drink with a few lives or eating animals going to perform the tea-ratus.”

In order to raise 30,00 won per day of hospitalization, B CC’s parents want to report once, and B’s words “the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person in question,” thereby openly insulting the victim.

B. Determination 1) We examine whether the Defendant made a statement that “the Defendant would grow 30,00 won per day of hospitalization,” and according to the CD content and record recording (28, 39 pages) in which the Defendant and the Victim’s conversation was recorded at the time of the instant case, it is evident that the Defendant’s statement was made by C, not the Defendant, but the husband of the Defendant, to the victim.

This part of the defendant's argument is justified.

(ii)..