The Defendant’s above remarks only consisting of expressions that the victimized person first expressed to the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant did not have the intention of insult, and the Defendant’s remarks do not constitute a warning expression as referred to in the offense of insult.

In light of the fact that F and E testified the Defendant’s above remarks at the time of the instant case in favor of the victim at the court below, since the Defendant’s remarks are closely related to the victim, there is no possibility of spreading the Defendant’s remarks and there is no performance of the offense of insult.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case that the defendant openly insulting the victim by taking a bath, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

Judgment

The offense of insult is established when a person openly insults another person. It refers to a crime that protects an external reputation, meaning a social evaluation of a person’s value, and “a person’s desire” refers to the expression of an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that may undermine a person’s social evaluation without indicating any fact.

In addition, the crime of insult is established by openly expressing an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that may undermine the external reputation of the victim. Thus, it does not require the victim’s external reputation to be practically infringed or specific and practically infringed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do9674, Oct. 13, 2016). In other words, the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court based on the aforementioned legal doctrine are the victim G’s investigative agency and the lower court’s court.