2. The judgment of the defendant and the defendant's defense counsel asserted that the defendant made the above remarks at the time and place specified in the facts charged, but this only speaks to E and thus it does not constitute a crime of insult due to lack of public performance.

In the crime of insult under the Criminal Code, performance refers to the state in which many, unspecified or unspecified persons can be recognized, and even if the facts are distributed to one person individually, if there is a possibility of spreading them to many, unspecified or unspecified persons, the requirements of performance shall be satisfied. However, if there is no possibility of spreading it differently, the spread of facts to a specific person has no public performance.

In light of the above legal principles, the case was examined, and according to the facts charged in this case, the defendant was seen as having heard the "large number of community residents, such as F," at the time of making the above speech to E.

in writing.

However, even according to the E’s statement, it is not clear who was the residents of the community center at the time were the Defendant’s remarks, and it was possible for many people to hear in light of the structure and situation of the site in this case.

It is difficult to conclude otherwise, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that many unspecified persons have heard the Defendant’s speech.

3. Conclusion, the instant facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered after the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.