beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the fact-finding and the misapprehension of the legal principle, the victim's family, execution officer, and police officers were only involved at the time when the victim was insulting, and the crime of insult under the Criminal Act cannot be established since there is no possibility of spreading to many and unspecified persons.
B. The sentencing of the lower court (one month of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. 1) Determination of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding the patent insult of a person under Article 311 of the Criminal Act refers to an act of openly insulting a person under Article 311 of the Criminal Act by using an ambiguous words in a situation where a large number of people or unspecified people can listen to and spread to others (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7478, Dec. 22, 2006). Meanwhile, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following facts can be acknowledged. (A) The Defendant resided in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C502, and the victims reside in C501 as his husband. C is a second generation, and C is a multi-unit house with a 1st floor door through a common stairs, and the Defendant committed an act of expressing his abstract judgment among the victims under the public forum No. 3501, Jul. 30, 2013.
C) In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the facts acknowledged, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant publicly insultingd the victims as long as he/she had expressed a desire in the common corridor of multi-family housing while the police officers and enforcement officers were present at the time, as long as he/she had expressed a desire in the common corridor of multi-family housing.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.
B. The Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is against the past victims.