The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Punishment on the accused shall be determined as a fine of 700,000 won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: “The aged and older persons who have been aged and older than the victim, who have been able to shotly saluted and saluted;”

Molithal stoves

Chewing arms have been cut.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that it constitutes an insulting act that defames the victim's external reputation, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the offense of insult.

2. In the crime of insult as referred to in the crime of insult refers to the expression of an abstract judgment or a sacrific sentiment that could undermine the people’s social assessment without a statement of facts (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1433, Jul. 10, 2008, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, in light of the health care unit of the instant case; the Defendant’s statement to the victim at the time; the contents of the Defendant’s expression at the time; the ordinary meaning and usage of the expression; and the circumstances leading up to the said remarks, the Defendant’s speech at the end of the Defendant’s speech, “Chewing years old, aged her, her mother, and her

Chewing Doz. Doz.

The expression "" is an expression of a victim's gender and emotional consciousness that could undermine the social assessment, and constitutes an insulting speech, and thus constitutes an insulting speech, and even if considering the fact that the Defendant was able to make the above remarks while imposing a mutual compensation with the victim, barring special circumstances such as where the victim expressed a desire to the extent corresponding to the Defendant's desire (Evidence 15 of the evidence record) unless it is acknowledged (the result of the CD reproduction on the 15 pages of the evidence record) by the Defendant’s speech constitutes a case where the victim expressed a personal attack against the victim by using an ambiguous expression, and thus, the act of this case by the Defendant cannot be deemed as an act that does not violate the social norms.

Therefore, the prosecutor's allegation of misapprehension of the above legal principles is reasonable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is with merit, and the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows after pleading.

Criminal facts

The defendant on November 2014.