The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) In the case of insult, misunderstanding the legal principles on insults, etc., the term “gypt” merely refers to a “information source that provides information related to narcotics crimes to an investigation agency,” and does not refer to a “marr” as stated in the facts charged, but does not constitute an insulting speech that expresses an abstract judgment that could objectively undermine the social assessment of the other party’s personal value or an sacrific sentiment.

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on insult.

2) The fact that the first instance court recognized the criminal facts different from the victim E’s accusation is erroneous (see, e.g., the grounds of appeal that the Defendant prepared to receive). B. The punishment for sentencing unfair one deliberation (one million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. 1) Determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the assertion of insult 1) The expression of abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that could undermine the people’s social evaluation without mentioning the facts (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3972, Nov. 28, 2003, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, the term “daily” among drug offenders refers to a person who provides information related to drug crimes to an investigation agency as recognized by the Defendant, and receives a certain amount of thought or money, and a person who receives a certain amount of profit or money by habitually checking other narcotics offenders, and thus, the victim’s smooth injury can be considered as “Ie” in that the instant abortion referred to as “Ie” falls under an abstract and sacrific expression sufficient to reduce the social evaluation of the victim E between them.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

2) Whether there was an error of finding a criminal fact different from the victim E’s intent of accusation, the complainant is an investigative agency to commit a certain criminal fact.