Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Even if the defendant took a bath for the victim only to E, it is recognized that the defendant took a bath in a situation where many and unspecified persons can be directly aware of it.

Even if the defendant's desire for the victim was not a situation in which many unspecified or unspecified persons could directly recognize the victim, the contents could be disseminated to the unspecified or many unspecified persons through E in light of the relationship between E and the victim.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the defendant is not recognized as a public performance at the time of insult is erroneous and erroneous in misapprehending legal principles.

The lower court determined as follows.

Unlike the cases where a fact is publicly stated, it is difficult to view that the expression of abstract judgment or sacrific appraisal is likely to be disseminated to an unspecified or unspecified person by nature.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, if a person who is a specific minority is committed in a situation recognizable by a specific minority, the “patent” cannot be deemed to have insulting the person.

The defendant took a bath to the victim only to E, who is a son together with the drinking place.

Since the Defendant made a insult against a victim only one person, and does not fall under the case of openly insulting a person, the Defendant does not constitute a crime of insult.

The offense of insult of the legal doctrine related to the judgment of the party is established when a person is openly insulting (Article 311 of the Criminal Act). The legal interest protected by the law is an external reputation, which means a social evaluation of the value of a person. Here, “defluence” is an abstract judgment or light that may undermine a person’s social evaluation without a statement of fact.