The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The offense of insult of the gist of the grounds of appeal is one-speed and cannot be deemed to have an intention to share or jointly process the act of insult between E and the Defendant. Thus, although the Defendant and E cannot be deemed to have an accomplice relation, the judgment of the court below which dismissed the public prosecution against the Defendant on the ground that the revocation of complaint against E extends to the Defendant, who is an accomplice, is also an accomplice, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. (1) According to the records of this case, around 02:10 on July 10, 2012, the Defendant, along with E, expressed a dispute on the ground that C would drink in the D clubs operated by C, and demanded an intermediate drinking value. C reported Defendant’s daily work to the police, and the victim G, a police officer dispatched to the police officer, entered into fraud if the Defendant did not calculate the drinking value. The Defendant expressed a desire to “Is the Defendant’s daily work, i.e., “Is the Defendant, she would have died, she would have become an attorney, and Is the Defendant and the Defendant and the victim would have been unable to pay the drinking value,” in combination with E, “Is the Defendant and the police officer would have expressed that “Is the Defendant would have been unable to pay the drinking value,” and “Is the Defendant and the victim would have to do so.”

B. According to the above facts, the police officer's intervention in the victim that the defendant and E pay the above salvic expressions or bathing values.