All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court as to the Defendant’s grounds for appeal, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of insult of the victim G among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the bounds of free evaluation of evidence by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal, or by misapprehending the relevant statutes or by misapprehending the legal doctrine

Meanwhile, the grounds of appeal that the Supreme Court’s sentencing guidelines have not been set as to the offense of insult, and that the judgment of the court below erred by violating the sentencing guidelines and not stating the sentencing factors due to the lack of the hearing of the sentencing factors, cannot be accepted.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below contains an error of law that deviates from the limit of sentencing discretion is ultimately unfair.

Therefore, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. Therefore, the argument that the Defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the reasons for the prosecutor’s appeal, the lower court reversed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant on the charge of insult of the victim J among the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that there was no proof of the relevant crime, and rendered a not guilty verdict.

The judgment below

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.