The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the prosecutor's statement of the summary of the grounds for appeal, it can be acknowledged that the defendant had more than 10 persons with the restaurant parking managers G and 10 persons in addition to his father at the site at the time of the defendant's wishing for the victim, and the requirements for "public performance" of the offense of insult of this case are satisfied. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to public performance, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment,

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) around 20:50 on March 1, 2014, the Defendant 20: (b) while there are more than 10 persons G with the restaurant parking managers G in front of the restaurant located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “D” restaurant, the Defendant “I will take a bath by the Korean taxi driver; (c) I will take a bath; and (d) I will take a bath.” and (e) “I will take this bath.”

D. It is the fact that the victim openly insultings the victim by referring to the chronic child.

B. In full view of the circumstances in the judgment below, the court below found that the defendant was only the defendant, his father, and the victim around him at the time of the defendant’s abusiveing of the victim, and found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the statement of the defendant

C. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the fact-finding by the court below that the defendant was only the defendant, his father, and the victim at the time of the defendant's desire to take care of the victim is just, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as proved without reasonable doubt that there was a situation where an unspecified or many unspecified persons can recognize his desire at the scene, such as the facts charged, at the time of the defendant'

Furthermore, since the defendant did not have any person other than the father of the defendant's child, the defendant's bath theory can be recognized as an unspecified or many unspecified persons in this case.