The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not state to E the same motive as the facts charged at the time and place stated in the instant facts charged.

2. Determination

A. The instant facts charged (1) on June 30, 2014, on the ground that the Defendant, at around 10:00, on the street in Sungnam-si, the “Dlum room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room held by the former husband E, the Defendant, the Defendant, at the same time, insultd the victim by openly insulting the Defendant on the front of the “Dum room room room room room room room room room room room”, the Defendant: (a) on the part of the police officers in the front of the Defendant; (b) on the part of the Defendant, he loaded salt in a vehicle before the Chewing gue is cut, and operated with sex south; and (c) on the part of the Defendant, the Defendant

(2) On July 26, 2014, at around 14:00, the Defendant publicly insultingd the victim on the following grounds: (a) prior to deeming the victim’s feascule to be a number of neighboring residents for the same reason in the foregoing place, the Defendant expressed that “I would have been behind the victim’s feascule in the coastal expressway, which would have been feasible, and would have been feasible, and would have been feasible.”

B. On this basis, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged of this case by taking into account the E’s respective statements at the lower court and the police, F’s legal statement at the lower court, and the F’s confirmation statement prepared as evidence.

C. However, the above determination by the court below is not acceptable.

In other words, the Defendant consistently asserts that there was no humping as described in the facts charged from the investigative agency to the court. The evidence that seems to correspond to the facts charged in the instant case includes E’s statement, F’s court testimony, and F’s fact-finding statement.

(1) First, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court concerning the E’s police and the statement in the lower court’s court, it is difficult to believe each of the E’s statements as they are.

(1) E shall be the defendant on January 2014.