Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. In the crime of insult of the relevant legal doctrine, “public performance” refers to a state in which many and unspecified persons can be recognized, so if there is a possibility that certain facts about a specific person may be disseminated to an unspecified or many unspecified persons, it shall be deemed that the requirements of performance are satisfied, or if there is no possibility of spreading any other fact, it shall be deemed that the performance lacks.

(See Supreme Court Decision 83Do49 delivered on April 10, 1984, etc.). B.

Judgment

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① at the time of the instant case: (a) D, the court below, stating in the court of the court below that “the Defendant was able to take a bath, such as “the Defendant’s 202 entrance and her opening a door, opening a door,”” (b) there is no special motive or reason to make a false statement; (c) there is no reasonable circumstance to suspect the credibility of the said statement; (d) it is difficult to view D as having a special trust relationship that does not spread the content of the victim’s family relationship or the Defendant’s birth; and (d) the victim’s father F was all the persons of the instant investigation agency because it was using the same entrance, but it is difficult for the Defendant to find and find out a confirmation document; and (d) it is difficult for the victim’s father F to confirm it.