It is nothing more than ever that the victim took a bath to E, and there is no desire for the victim.

Even if the Defendant expressed the victim’s desire, the Defendant

Even if this is limited to the degree of expression of the defendant's complaint or decentralization, it does not constitute insult, as it does not decrease the social evaluation of the victim's personal value.

On the other hand, although the defendant told the victim that "the victim is equitable," this means that the victim is not a person with a disability but a person with a disability in the future. Thus, it does not constitute insult, and there was no intention to insult the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the charged facts of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The offense of insult of the relevant legal doctrine is established when a person is openly insulting (Article 311 of the Criminal Act). The legal interest refers to the protection of external reputation, which means a social evaluation of the value of a person. Here, the expression of an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment, which does not indicate any fact, is an expression of a person’s social evaluation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do3972, Nov. 28, 2003; 2016Do9674, Oct. 13, 2016). (b) In full view of the lower court’s determination as to whether the Defendant expressed the victim’s desire, and the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of first instance, the Defendant’s assertion in this part can be recognized as having expressed the victim’s desire as the facts charged in the instant case.

1) The victim is the victim from the investigative agency to the court of the court below’s trial, “The defendant expressed his desire to do so, and continue to do so even when E is accompanied by it.”