When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Around 15:40 on July 7, 2014, at the D office operated by the Defendant, the Defendant, in order to seize corporeal movables by the victim E, who entered the above office together with the F. F. F. F. F. G. D’s staff H. and I. In order for the victim E to seize corporeal movables, the Defendant publicly insultingd the victim by “this f.e., sof., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., D’s staff H., and I.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the recording file is a legitimate act that does not go against the social norms, since the Defendant’s performance and propagation necessary for the establishment of the offense of insult was not in a situation where an execution officer, a chief executive officer, a defendant’s employees, etc. who had been on the spot performed their own work, and the Defendant’s employees, etc. may not carefully listen to the victim’s speech, and thus, the Defendant did not have any possibility of public performance and dissemination necessary for the establishment of the offense of insult. In addition, the Defendant’s assertion that there was no possibility of public performance and dissemination. In the crime of insult, the term “public” means that there is a situation in which many and unspecified persons can be recognized, and even if a certain talk about a specific person, if there is a possibility of spreading it to the unspecified or many unspecified persons, it satisfies the requirements of “public performance” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do445, May 26, 1992). The following facts are comprehensively considered in light of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence:

However, it is judged that at least there was a possibility of spreading to many and unspecified persons.