We reverse the judgment of the first instance court.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of the judgment of innocence shall be published.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles and improper sentencing)

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles does not necessarily mean a fact or a victim’s expression at the time of the instant case, and it cannot be deemed that there is a public performance.

B. Sentencing 1 Sentencing 200,000,000,000 won, which is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. Languages are the most basic means of human expression, and each person may be subject to different language habits, and all of them cannot be punished as a crime of insult under the Criminal Act on the grounds that such expressions are somewhat vague and indecent.

Therefore, if any expression is not likely to undermine the social evaluation of the other party’s personal value, even if such expression was expressed in a somewhat fluorous and indecent manner, it cannot be deemed a constituent element of the offense of insult. If the victim does not express a sacrific sentiment that may undermine the social evaluation of his/her personal value by specifying the victim, it is difficult to constitute an offense of insult (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do6622, Dec. 24, 2015). Performance, which is the constituent element of the offense of insult, refers to the state in which an unspecified or multiple number of people can be recognized, and even if such expression was insulting against an individual, it is difficult to constitute an offense of

Even if there is a possibility that a person can be disseminated to an unspecified or unspecified person, if he/she satisfies the requirements of performance, but there is no possibility of spreading otherwise, the insult against a specific person is determined (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do5622, May 16, 200, etc.). (b) The instant case is deemed to be a performance in accordance with such legal doctrine.

According to the records of this case, the following facts and circumstances are recognized.

(1) On February 2, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 08:30 on February 2, 2017, at the third floor parking lot of the “C” hotel located in Jung-gu Seoul, Seoul, the Defendant left the body where the victim was on board while parking the mast vehicle and opening and closing the door.