The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground that the Defendant’s desire was not likely to spread to many and unspecified persons at the time of the instant case of mistake of facts.

B. (1) In light of the legal principles, the abusive theory written in the facts constituting a crime committed by the Defendant does not constitute an expression of an abstract judgment or a sacrific sentiment that could lead to the victim’s social evaluation, and thus, cannot be deemed an insult. Therefore, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of having erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the insult of the offense of insult.

(2) The Defendant’s breathing of the Defendant was intended to resist the illegal arrest of the victim, who is a police officer, and constitutes self-defense or legitimate act. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty, thereby misapprehending the legal doctrine on self-defense and legitimate act.

C. The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (one million won of a fine) of the lower court is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, at the time when the defendant expressed a great voice to the victim at the head of the instant head office, F, a police officer of the said head office, was the victim, and G, a head of the relevant head office, employees of the head office, and customers were inside the head office.

Therefore, since the defendant's abusive theory is likely to be disseminated to many unspecified persons other than the victim, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

B. In this case, the determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the assertion that the Defendant does not constitute insult (1) does not accept the Defendant’s above assertion, since the Defendant’s humcon’s humcon’s humcon’s humcon’s humcon’s humcon’s humcon

(2) The lower court duly adopted and investigated the allegation that the act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act.