The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as stated in the judgment of the court below, as well as there is no fact that the Defendant publicly insultingd the victim, and even if related to the crime committed on May 9, 2016, he expressed such desire.

Even if there was a desire to insult the victim under the influence of the appraisal, there was no intention to insult the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found each of the facts charged in this case guilty is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The offense of insult is established when a person openly insults another person. The term “a person’s external reputation” refers to a crime of protecting a person’s value as a legal interest. Here, “a person’s desire” refers to the expression of an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that may undermine a person’s social assessment without indicating the fact.

Furthermore, the crime of insult is established by openly expressing an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that may undermine the victim’s external reputation (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do9674, Oct. 13, 2016). Circumstances acknowledged by lawful evidence adopted by the lower court, namely, the background of the instant case, the grounds why the Defendant expressed the victim’s desire to do so, the Defendant’s speech and behavior, the victim’s statement is consistent and specific, and the victim’s statement is recognized sufficiently in light of the victim’s statement’s contents and attitude, etc., without any circumstance where the victim’s statement is not false, and the E and F’s statement and its attitude cannot be recorded in each court’s statement. However, considering the overall statement of the Defendant’s criminal procedure, the entire statement of the Defendant is consistent with the Defendant’s statement of each court below, and the victim’s statement is almost consistent with the victim’s statement and the Defendant’s assertion are inconsistent with each other, the Defendant is found to have a bit bit 503 years, etc.