“Public performance”, which is the element of the crime of insult, refers to a state in which many and unspecified persons can recognize it. Thus, even if a fact was distributed to one person individually, if there is a possibility of spreading it to an unspecified or unspecified person, the requirement of public performance is satisfied.

In full view of the following circumstances revealed in the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the contents of the Defendant’s dialogue are likely to spread.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

0 Even if the Defendant, along with C, D, E, and F, made a conversation on criminal facts in the Kakao Stockholm room and promised not to spread the content thereof, it cannot be said that there is no possibility that F, etc., the other party to the conversation, may spread the content to an unspecified or many unspecified persons.

There is no special relation relationship that F, etc., the other party to the conversation, will not spread the contents of the conversation recorded in the crime.

0 Contents of conversations on criminal facts are also likely to be disseminated by sexual humiliations and slanders against victims.

0 The other party to whom the defendant sent the message is four, and all of them are not only the victim but also the victim at an online community, but also the victim at an off-line regular meeting.

0 The defendant injured or insulting Qua, not only the victim but also other members of online community, by the same way, and F sent the message to the defendant.