2. The “public performance” in the crime of insult refers to the state in which many, unspecified or unspecified persons can be recognized. Thus, if there is a possibility that a certain fact about a certain person might be disseminated to an unspecified or unspecified person, the requirements of the public performance are satisfied, but if there is no possibility that it might spread differently, the public performance is lacking.

(See Supreme Court Decision 83Do49 delivered on April 10, 1984). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, it is only recognized that two police officers, victim-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-

In light of the foregoing, it is reasonable to view that there is no possibility to spread the above insult to the victim’s mother-child relationship and the victim’s father-child relationship, and that police officers are also obligated to maintain confidentiality as police officers in relation to investigation (see Supreme Court Decision 66Do179, Apr. 19, 196).

Therefore, there is no evidence to acknowledge the public performance of the offense of insult.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325