In light of the legal principles, the Defendant raised a question of “whether the victim’s actual loss (the victim’s loss differs from the other security guards’ loss)” as to specific facts, namely, the victim’s frequent loss (the victim’s loss differs from the other security guards). As such, it cannot be deemed that there was an abstract judgment or an expression of light-defensive appraisal as referred to in the offense of insult.

Although there was no evidence showing that employees had disseminated or disseminated the horses to the victim from the Defendant to many and unspecified persons, the lower court erred by recognizing the possibility of dissemination.

Judgment

As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment of the court below, and the court below acknowledged the facts that the Defendant had made a statement on the facts stated in the judgment of the court below.

Examining the judgment of the court below closely by comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts alleged by the defendant.

Defendant

This part of the defense counsel's assertion is without merit.

Whether or not the defendant expressed an abstract judgment or an sacrific sentiment that could undermine the social evaluation of the victim, or whether or not the defendant expressed an abstract judgment or an sacrific sentiment as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, the court below held that the act in the manner described in the defendant's decision, based on the same circumstances as the reasoning of appeal, constitutes insult as an expression of abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that may undermine the social evaluation of the victim, and that the defendant also

The following facts are revealed through the records presented by the court below.