A. The judgment of the court below convicting the defendant of the crime of insult is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the public performance of the offense of insult, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to the public performance of the offense of insult, although the victim was not found to have "public performance", which is the element of the crime of insult intentionally created by the victim, while the police officer in this case divided the victim's talk with the defendant out of the main place E in order to arrest the defendant as an offender.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence of the misapprehension of the legal principle, the defendant lost the key of his automobile, and asked the owner of the "H" shop where he dices alcohol, and reported 112 by requesting the owner of the "H" shop where he dices alcohol, and the police officer dispatched failed to find the key, thereby inducing the defendant to board and return to the same. However, the defendant sent the main point of "C" in the vicinity without returning home to home, and again called the victim D, etc. who is the police officer due to the report of the above main place of business. The defendant did not have the victim's key to his automobile, and the defendant did not take the victim's behavior, such as referring to "this d', etc.," and d's face d', and even if the victim warns several times, the defendant " this new d'.

Doz. Doz.

” 고 이야기하는 등 시비를 걸자 피해 자가 위 주점 업주 E를 밖으로 불러낸 뒤 피고인에게 다시 한 번 욕설을 하면 모욕죄의 현행범으로 체포할 수 있다면서 귀가를 권유한 사실, 그러나 피고인은 다시 “ 야 이 개새끼야, 이 똘 아이 새끼” 등의 욕설을 하였고 피해자는 피고인을 모욕죄의 현행범으로 체포한 사실이 인정된다.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is the police officer.