The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. It is true that the defendant, at the time of the instant case, expressed the victim’s desire as stated in the facts charged.

However, the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules, because the defendant had the victim take a bath in the course of being abused by G, who is the husband of the victim, and having the victim take a bath, due to the misunderstanding of the price at that time.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant made the victim a statement as stated in the facts charged of this case, and this constitutes an insulting speech, because the defendant expressed an abstract judgment or a sacrific sentiment that could undermine social evaluation by neglecting the victim.

In addition, in light of the overall circumstances, such as the relationship between the defendant and the victim, the circumstances leading up to the issue of payment at the time of the instant case with the victim and the victim, the background leading up to the police officer's mobilization and restraint of the victim, and the details and degree of specific speech and behavior, and the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., which appear at the time of the instant case, even if G, the husband of the victim, as the Defendant's assertion, exercised some tangible power, etc., the Defendant cannot be deemed to constitute a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, which does not violate social norms, in light of the sound social norms.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

It is difficult to see it.

The above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

3. Conclusion.