The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant misunderstanding the facts did not insult the victim D by referring the victim D.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The facts and circumstances as follows acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the court below as to the assertion of facts. ① The victim D stated in the investigative agency that “the defendant expressed that “the defendant was obscis in the presence of E, F, and G, the victim’s “new son such as gue, C, C,” and that the victim stated relatively specific and consistently on the circumstances, contents, etc. of the case (Evidence No. 16, 17 of the evidence record). ② The victim E consistently stated from the investigative agency to the court of the first instance, “the defendant expressed the victim’s desire” (No. 44 of the evidence record, No. 65 of the trial record, No. 2 of the examination record of the witness E), witness F, and the victim’s statement consistent with the victim’s statement in the investigative agency and the court of the court below (No. 53 of the evidence record, No. 7 of the trial record). However, the witness’s statement consistent with the victim’s statement in the above investigation agency or investigation agency.

In light of the fact that it is difficult to see, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the insult of the victim by taking the victim’s bath.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is rejected.

B. The defendant appears to have committed a contingent crime in the course of disputing with the victim. The victim also appears to have been the defendant.