A. As to paragraph (1) of the facts charged of the instant case (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles), the Defendant did not make the same remarks as indicated in this part of the facts charged.

Even if the Defendant made a statement as to the facts charged, there is a fact that the Defendant made such statement.

Even though several apartment security guards have talked only to some apartment security guards, so it was not in a situation where many unspecified people could recognize the defendant's speech, and there is a possibility of spreading in consideration of the relationship between security guards and residents

No public performance is recognized because it is not possible to do so.

B. As to paragraph 3 (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles) of the facts charged in this part, the Defendant sent a recording file (the file in which the damaged person recorded the content of the Defendant’s abusive language) to Kakaooooo to H as stated in the facts charged. However, this was merely a question about how the Defendant would think of H in the situation where the damaged person suffered an insulting injury, and there was no purpose to defame the victim.

In addition, the defendant sent the above recording file only to H 1, and considering the relationship between security guards and residents, there is a possibility of dissemination.

It is not possible to see that the performance is not recognized.

2. Determination

A. 1) The judgment of the court below as to the argument related to Paragraph 1 of the facts charged of this case 1) denied this part of the facts charged in the court below to the effect that the defendant did not make a statement as stated in this part of the facts charged, and that the performance is not recognized. The court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that performance is recognized in light of the relationship between E, F, G and the defendant and the victim, and the contents of the defendant's speech against the victim

2) In addition to the reasoning of the lower court’s judgment, the Defendant was not the Defendant, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.