(1) The Defendant did not appear on the part of the Defendant at the time of the instant case, and the Defendant did not appear on the part of the Defendant, and the Defendant did not appear on the part of the Defendant. As such, the Defendant did not appear on the part of the Defendant, even if the Defendant was working on the part of the Defendant at the time of the instant case.

(B) The judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the offense of insult, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the assertion, “public performance” in the crime of insult refers to the state in which a person or an unspecified number of people can recognize the relevant speech (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Do49, Apr. 10, 1984). Moreover, the offense of insult is sufficient to publicly indicate an abstract judgment that may undermine the external reputation of a person. As such, a third party can be recognized at the time of display, and a third party is not necessarily required to be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934, Jun. 25, 2004). In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant at the time of the instant case was in a state in which another employee could have been aware of the victim’s taking a bath as described in the facts charged. Thus, public performance is recognized.

A. From the investigative agency to the court of the court below, when the defendant takes a bath to the victim at the fifth floor office, the victim had four employees, such as D, F, and H, in addition to the defendant and the victim.