All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles and misunderstanding of the Defendants merely engaged in a contingent and emotional humiliation, and thus did not constitute a crime of insult, and did not conspired to commit insult.

2) The police officer G arrested the Defendants as the current offender of the crime of fraud (infinite type) with the apparentness of the crime, which is the requirement for the arrest of a flagrant offender, and without the necessity of the arrest. Moreover, the arrest of a flagrant offender was unlawful on the grounds that the police officer did not notify the summary of the suspected crime, the reason for the arrest, the right to appoint a counsel, etc. (hereinafter “infinite principle”) while arresting a flagrant offender.

Since the Defendants expressed their desire in the process of setting up against the illegal arrest of flagrant offenders, the Defendants’ act constitutes a legitimate defense or a legitimate act and thus, the illegality of the Defendants’ act is dismissed.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (a fine of one million won and the cost of the lawsuit) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. On October 3, 2015, around 01:50, the Defendants were arrested as the current criminal of fraud on the ground that: (a) the Defendants arrested the Defendants who did not pay the drinking value by the victim G (50) who was the police officer called up after receiving a report from F, the main owner of the said main place of business and from 3 to 4 persons under the name of 3 to 112, the traffic of the above main place of business; and (b) Defendant A arrested the Defendants as the current criminal of fraud.

In this sense, I am h., I am h., and I am h., I am h. the defendant B h., "Past police," and I am h.

I would like to see this argue argue in a way that is not sealed by both argue.

“The expression was expressed as “...”

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to insult the victim publicly.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendants conspired to and insult police officers G as stated in the instant facts charged can be recognized.