On December 13, 2013, at around 08:00 on December 13, 2013, the Defendant publicly insultingd the victim by referring to the victim’s “nicker, sweaker,” among police officers dispatched after receiving a report in front of the Defendant’s house located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Building C, and referring to the victim’s “nicker, sweaker,” and referring to the victim’s “nicker, sweak, and sweak” from the street near the Defendant’s house.

2. The lower court rendered a judgment that acquitted the entire facts charged of the instant case for the following reasons. A.

In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant’s speech cannot be deemed to have a possibility of spreading to many and unspecified persons, and it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant had a public performance required for the establishment of the offense of insult.

① At the time of the Defendant’s statement as stated in the facts charged, there were a number of police officers called out after receiving reports of E, F, and E around the Defendant, and there were marrieds of the Defendant in the home of the Defendant.

② Unless there are special circumstances, F is deemed to have no possibility of spreading the above insulting content to many and unspecified persons as to E’s father, barring special circumstances, and Defendant’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s above insulting content is also unlikely to spread.

③ The police officers are also obligated to keep secrets as public officials engaged in the investigation, and it is judged that there is no possibility of spreading the above insulting contents to many and unspecified persons.

B. In light of the following circumstances, E’s legal statement that seems to correspond to the facts charged is not reliable, and the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is an unspecified number of the defendants.