The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the comments on the comments on the facts stated in the judgment of the court below that the Defendant posted by misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (hereinafter “the comments on the comments of this case”) that “if a victim’s meeting was said to be a female, that part of that part of that part of that part may not be the subject of body is not directly referred to the victim, but rather referred to as “if a person is a female in a relationship with the victim’s meeting, that part of that part of that part is not a woman, that part of that part of the victim’s meeting is not a woman,” and it merely

Although the crime of this case is partially insulting expressions in the process of emphasizing the victim's opinions and judgments in response to the victim's initiative, and it constitutes an act that does not go against the social norms, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the amount of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the court below also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the court below rejected the above assertion in detail with the defendant's assertion and its judgment in the written judgment (the two acts of conduct and conduct No. 8 or conduct No. 12 on the 3rd side). In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below compared with the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts alleged by the defendant or misunderstanding of legal principles.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

B. Regarding the unfair argument of sentencing, the court below decided the above punishment against the defendant on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. There are circumstances to consider the circumstances of the crime in this case, and the defendant is a recipient of basic living.