The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, on the ground that the Defendant merely expressed the complaint in the form of a mixed-form, but did not expressed the victim’s abusive language, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The Defendant also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in the lower judgment.

The court below, based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, found that the defendant, according to the principle of mixedness in the vicinity of the children's large park prior to being arrested by the police as the current criminal.

The statement, ② The victimized police officer consistently stated to the effect that the Defendant arrested the Defendant as an current offender upon the request of the Defendant to present his/her identification card in the above children’s substitute park, as stated in its reasoning, and that there is no circumstance to suspect the credibility of the statement, ③ there was another circumstance in which the victimized police officer, who was in dispute with the Defendant, left the scene without filing a complaint against the Defendant, was to arrest the Defendant as the current offender.

(4) There is no circumstance to view that E, a witness of the police station, made a statement to the effect that the situation at the time was not memory in this court, but the records submitted alone are insufficient to present other reasons to inform the police officer of contact information in addition to E’s witness of the situation at the time. In full view of these circumstances, the Defendant determined that the Defendant’s insult was sufficiently recognized as stated in its reasoning.

B. In light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.