A. The Defendant made the victim the same remarks as the facts charged on the part of the victim, where the victim and the victim’s friendly words F.

Ultimately, the issues of the instant case are whether performance is recognized as an objective constituent element of the offense of insult.

B. The lower court understood the public performance of the offense of insult to the same meaning as the performance of the offense of defamation, and recognized the public performance as not having a possibility for F to spread to others in light of the relationship between the victim and the victim’s friendship and trust.

The decision was determined.

(c)

It is recognized that the victim and F have come together with E Private Teaching Institutes (hereinafter referred to as “private Teaching Institutes in this case”).

However, even in this case, it is difficult to readily conclude that there is no possibility of dissemination solely on the ground that it is a pro-friendly will, as shown in the lower judgment, and in particular, in the case of insult, performance should be expanded rather

In the case of the crime of defamation, since the fact spread to many and unspecified persons results in de facto damaging reputation, it is necessary to strictly recognize the possibility of dissemination to many and unspecified persons. However, in the case of the offense of insult, the victim's insulting speech to the victim under the status of another person may immediately be insulting.

(d)

The Defendant’s remarks led the victim to feel deep insult, and as long as the victim’s friendship F along with the victim’s friendship F along with the said remarks, it should be deemed that the crime of insult is established regardless of the possibility of spreading F.

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) around August 20, 2016, the Defendant is around the second floor of the D Building in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the second floor of the D Building in Seocho-gu.