The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than four months and by a fine not exceeding 100,000 won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the insult 1), the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, even though it was necessary to render a judgment dismissing the prosecution, since the Defendant submitted a written agreement with the victim H to the lower court.

2) As to the violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, the statutory penalty for the violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act due to the act of disturbing drinking is “a fine not exceeding 100,000 won, detention, or minor fine” but the lower court sentenced 20,000 won to the charges in this part.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the imprisonment of 6 months and the fine of 200,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

A. In relation to insult, the offense of insult is a crime falling under Article 311 of the Criminal Act and is subject to prosecution only upon the filing of a complaint under Article 312(1) of the Criminal Act. Therefore, in a case where a complaint prior to pronouncement of judgment in the first instance after the institution of public prosecution has been revoked, a judgment dismissing the public prosecution shall be pronounced pursuant to Article 327(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

According to the records, after agreement with the victim H on May 5, 2017, which was before the judgment of the first instance court was rendered after the prosecution of this case, it can be acknowledged that the court of the original instance submitted a written agreement to the effect that "the victim shall not be held liable for any civil or criminal liability in the future against the defendant" to the court of the original instance on May 8, 2017, which was before the judgment of the first instance court was rendered after the prosecution of this case. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the victim has withdrawn the previous opinion that the victim wanted to punish the defendant, and thus,

Therefore, the court below should have rendered a judgment dismissing a public prosecution pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act with regard to insult among the facts charged in the instant case, but found the defendant guilty, and deemed the remaining crimes as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and sentenced to one punishment with regard to the crime of insult and the crime of interference with duties.

(b) the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act;