The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the process of disputing with E, the Chairperson of the Election Management Committee, the Chairperson of the Gangnam-gu Election Management Committee, when the Defendant misunderstanding the facts and misapprehending the legal principles, held a meeting at the office of the 2nd election management members of the Gangnam-gu apartment apartment management office in Seoul (hereinafter “instant meeting”) and made a statement about the victim D, as described in the facts charged.

However, this is only a mixed standard between the unrefinite forms, but it cannot be said to insult the victim D, and there was no intention to insult D to the defendant.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine cannot be accepted, as it is alleged in the facts charged.

1) According to the recording, at the instant meeting around 15:00 on May 13, 2016, the Defendant, a member of the election management, disputed with the Chairperson E of the Election Management Committee, and as stated in the facts charged, “D, the Domine, and Domine fe,” as stated in the facts charged.

"..." Shebling up from the kbb kb kb w, D "...." handb kb kb kbs.

In the instant conference, the Defendant, at the time of the instant conference, did so to the victim in the form of a mixed-level between E and E, but the Defendant at the time of dispute with the victim’s desire to h and the victim’s operation by E, while arguing that E is in the form of large sound.

Considering the fact that the victim's name has been discussed and that the victim's name has been discussed and that the victim's name has been repeated in one time, the statement of the defendant against the victim falls under the mixed standard.