The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant’s speaking against the victim as described in the facts charged in this case is a criticism and expression of intent within the socially acceptable scope, and thus, cannot be deemed as expressing an abstract judgment or a sacrific sentiment that may undermine the people’s social evaluation, and thus, does not constitute an “defluence” in the crime of insult. 2) Even if the Defendant’s speaking on domestic affairs constitutes insult, it is not contrary to the social rules, and thus, illegal as it constitutes a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

3) Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the charged facts of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

가. 사실오인 및 법리오해 주장에 대한 판단 원심 판시 각 증거들에 의하면, 피고인은 피해자에게 손가락질을 하며 “엉터리 답변을 하시려면 집에 가세요. 공무원 하지 마세요. 당신 같은 사람은 공무원 할 자격이 없는 사람이에요”, "당신은 조사할 가치가 없는 사람이야. 당신 약 먹었어요. 아저씨. 이 사람이 이거 112신고 해야겠네. 하는 짓이 이게 뭡니까, 민원인한테. 이거 또라이도 아니고 희한한 양반이네"라는 말을 한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

The above expressions used by the defendant are deemed to constitute an expression of abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that may undermine the social assessment of the victim beyond mere criticism, claim, or point of view, and thus, the above act of the defendant is deemed to constitute insult in the crime of insult.

On the other hand, even if a certain statement contains an insulting expression, it is sound in that era.