The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant did not have been suffering from a glass disease to another person, but confirmed the next empty space in caric books, and the Defendant was hospitalized in a hospital from April 29, 2013 to May 29, 2013, and thus, the Defendant could not commit insult against the victim.

B. The facts charged as to the offense of insult of legal principles are as follows: (a) the date and time of the offense; and (b) the date and time of the offense.

5. Between patrolmen, the date and time of which was not specified.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is without merit, since it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant was free from the victim due to driving away from the victim, and that the Defendant’s insultd the victim.

B. The facts charged in the judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles must be stated clearly by specifying the time, date, place, and method of a crime (Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act). The purport of the law demanding the specification of the facts charged is to facilitate the Defendant’s exercise of the Defendant’s right to defense. As such, it is sufficient that the facts charged are stated to the extent that the facts constituting the elements of a crime are distinguishable from other facts by comprehensively taking account of these elements, and even if the date, place, method, etc. of a crime are not specifically indicated in the indictment, it does not go against the purport of the law allowing the specification of the facts charged, in light of the nature of the offense charged, and if the general indication is inevitable in light of the nature of the offense

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do4671, Aug. 26, 2010). The Defendant asserted that the part of the charge of insult was not specified in the lower court’s trial, and the indictment was modified to be “Policeman on April 2013,” and the charge was committed.