The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Compared to misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant did not wish the victim as stated in the facts charged, and only told that “driving is immediately harmful.” 2) At the time of the instant case, a considerable number of vehicles are driving on the road, and the noise of vehicles, engines, etc. was considerable, and the Defendant’s vehicle was recovered in a large sound on the road.

Furthermore, due to the dispute between the defendant and the victim, some obstacles to vehicle traffic have occurred, and the noise has been considerable in the wind that the surrounding vehicles sound the light, and most of the vehicles have passed by closing their windows.

In light of these circumstances, since the Defendant’s remarks cannot be heard by other drivers, the Defendant’s act is not recognized as a constituent element of the offense of insult.

3) Even if the Defendant’s act constitutes the constituent elements of the offense of insult, the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social norms in light of all the circumstances, including the background leading up to the Defendant’s speech, the degree of insulting speech, and the victim’s response before and after the Defendant’s speech. Furthermore, the sentence imposed by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Regarding the assertion that there was no misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the relevant legal principles were considered, and considering the difference between the method of evaluating the credibility of the first instance court and the appellate court in accordance with the spirit of the substantial direct trial principle adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle, there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous or further made between the result of the examination of evidence and the date of the closing of argument in the appellate court.