The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal revealed that the Defendants had expressed desire to the victims, but this constitutes legitimate defense against the victims’ illegal arrest.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the defendants' illegal arrest and defense-related arguments based on the false statements of the victims and the evidence that the police fabricated. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misconceptions of facts.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendants can recognize the fact that they conspired to report 112 and publicly insult the victims who are police officers dispatched. The defendants' above insult in the same opportunity at the same place is deemed to be one act in light of social norms. Thus, the victim's insult is in a mutually competitive relationship.

It is reasonable to view it.

In this regard, the lower court recognized this as a single crime, and thus, the lower judgment cannot be maintained any further.

However, the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

B. The court below rejected the Defendants’ assertion on the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the Defendants’ mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as alleged above in the judgment of the court below, with a detailed statement of the judgment under the title “the determination of the Defendants and the defense counsel’ assertion”. In comparison with the above judgment of the court below, the court below is justified in its consistent with the records (the Defendants’ assertion at the court below that the KT reply materials or the 112 reported processing records were distorted in the court of the court below). In so doing, contrary to the Defendants’ assertion, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles on the legitimate defense.

subsection (b) of this section.

. Defendants