The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not contain any misunderstanding of facts as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below (misunderstanding of facts). Even if the Defendant insulted E as above, considering the friendly relationship between G and E, there is no possibility of dissemination (misunderstanding of legal principles). The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as seen above.

2. Determination

A. In light of the content of the first instance judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the first instance witness was clearly erroneous.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances to see the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial and the result of the further examination of evidence conducted until the closing of the appellate trial, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006; 201Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). The lower court examined the victim E, witness G, and H as a witness and examined them to have credibility in those statements consistent with the facts charged of the instant case.

Based on the judgment, the defendant was pronounced guilty.

Even if the court below duly adopted and examined the evidence, it was clearly erroneous in its determination.

It does not seem that there are special circumstances or circumstances that can be seen as significantly unfair to maintain these judgments.

The defendant's assertion that the judgment below erred by mistake of facts is without merit.

B. The elements of the crime of insult of judgment as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine are the elements.