On June 12, 2017, around 21:30 on June 21, 2017, the Defendant publicly insultingd the victim by saying, “The victim is a G and resident on the ground that the victim opened his/her own mail.”

2. In light of the fact that the contents of the statement in this court, C, and G and the statement in the investigative agency are contrary to the video images of CCTV video (Evidence No. 1) submitted by the Defendant, it cannot be believed that the contents of the statement are inconsistent with those of the video of CCTV (Evidence No. 1). (Although the Defendant immediately reported to the police on the ground of the victim’s intrusion upon the victim’s residence, the victim submitted a written accusation on June 19, 2017, the victim submitted the written complaint to the police for the reason of the victim’s intrusion upon residence

3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime, a judgment of innocence is rendered after the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act and the defendant does not consent to a public notice of acquittal, and thus, the public notice of the judgment of innocence is not ordered under the proviso of Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.