2. The Korean Criminal Act requires “public insult” as a constituent element of the crime of insult (Article 311 of the Criminal Act). Thus, in order to establish the crime of insult, the requirement of the so-called “public performance” should be satisfied to the effect that an unspecified person or a large number of people can be recognized. If there is no possibility of spreading to the unspecified or large number of people, the crime of insult should not be established.

According to the records of this case, the defendant could recognize the fact that the victim E, who is a police officer, among the police officers F, etc. in the D District Office, took the same bath as the stated in the facts charged of this case. However, the defendant's above act was inside the D District Office, and the entrance door was closed, and the defendant's speech was only the police officers working within the D District Office. Since the people who take the defendant's speech were only the police officers working within the D District Office, it is difficult to view that the above police officers' speech could have a possibility of spreading the defendant's speech to unspecified or many unspecified persons (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2090, Apr. 24, 2008). In such circumstances, there is no possibility that the defendant's speech might be disseminated, i.e., a public performance., there is no possibility of spreading the defendant's speech, unless there is any special

and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act