The appeal is dismissed.

The lower judgment’s 2019No5135 part of the case name indication is deleted, and the Act and subordinate statutes are deleted.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only a case on which death penalty, imprisonment with or without prison labor for an indefinite term or for not less than ten years has been pronounced, an appeal may be filed on the ground that the judgment of the court below had influenced

Therefore, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to a more minor punishment, the court below erred in the incomplete hearing, the violation of the rules of evidence, the misconception of facts, and the fact-finding based on the judgment of the court below, or the misapprehension of legal principles based on the facts found by the court below cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the argument that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the public performance of defamation and insult in the judgment of the court below is not a legitimate ground for appeal since the defendant's ground for appeal is the reason for appeal or the court below did not consider it as an object of judgment ex officio.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed pursuant to Article 380(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and since there is an obvious clerical error in the indication and reason of the case name of the judgment below, it shall be corrected in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure. It is so decided as per Disposition by

February 14, 2020