The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. Grounds for appeal;

A. Since there was no other person than the victim at the time of the instant case, there was no public performance, the insult case as of October 15, 2012, which was lodged together with the instant case, was withdrawn on March 20, 2013. Since the instant case was in a comprehensive relationship with the insult case that was withdrawn from the said complaint, the instant case also is deemed to have been withdrawn from the said complaint, there was an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the lower court otherwise determined.

B. The sentencing of the lower court on the grounds that the sentencing of an unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the offense of insult and insult is an offense subject to victim’s complaint under Article 312(1) of the Criminal Act. According to the records, the complainant is subject to victim’s complaint at the time of the initial investigation on March 5, 2013, where he/she was insultd by the police officer on October 15, 2012, and where on February 4, 2013, he/she made a complaint only on the fact that he/she had resided on his/her own as of February 4, 2013.

The answer is called "....."

(No. 35 of the Evidence Records) In full view of the fact that the perpetrator of the insult case that was held on October 15, 2012 and the insult case that was held on February 4, 2013 is all the defendant, while the perpetrator of the damage to property that was held on February 4, 2013 is the husband C of the defendant, and the complainant revoked the complaint only for the insult case as of October 15, 2012 after reconciliation with the defendant on March 20, 2013, the complainant is deemed to have filed a complaint only for the insult of the defendant on October 15, 2012 and the damage to the property of the defendant's husband on February 4, 2013.

However, since the prosecution of this case concerns the insult of February 4, 2013, it cannot be deemed that there was a victim's complaint regarding this part.

Therefore, the prosecution of this case is instituted in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act.