2. The public performance in the offense of insult refers to the state in which an unspecified or multiple number of people can be recognized as the same as the public performance in the offense of defamation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Do1949 delivered on September 8, 1998, etc.). According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the Defendant could have known that he had a management office employee at the time of speaking in this case, and it cannot be readily concluded that there is no possibility of dissemination. Thus, performance is sufficiently recognized.

In addition, the insult referred to in the crime of insult is not a statement of fact, but an abstract judgment or a sacrific sentiment that could undermine the social evaluation of a person is expressed, and the Defendant’s expression “Is the lusium of the lusium” toward the victim is sufficient to regard it as an insulting speech that may damage the social evaluation of the victim.

Furthermore, it is necessary to separately consider and determine whether a certain act is unlawful as a legitimate act that does not contravene the social norms. Thus, to recognize such legitimate act, the following requirements should be met: (i) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (ii) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (iii) balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests; (iv) urgency; and (v) supplementaryness that there is no other means or method other than the act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5077 Decided December 26, 2002, and Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3000 Decided September 26, 2003, etc.). However, the Defendant’s act does not violate the social rules in light of the motive and background leading up to such a statement, the degree of expression, and the situation at the time, etc.