The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal in this case is as follows: (a) there may be no public performance in the case of insult as of January 30, 2018 among the facts charged in this case; (b) however, in the case of insult as of January 27, 2018, the Defendant’s child at the time was at the scene; and (c) in the case of defamation as of January 31, 2018, the Defendant was only a person in a name-free behavior; and (d) the Defendant’s “public performance” can be sufficiently recognized in light of the degree and duration of the highness, and the situation at the scene of the crime, but the lower court acquitted the Defendant of each of the facts charged in this case on the ground that there

2. The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, acquitted the Defendant on the following grounds: (a) it is difficult for the Defendant to exclude the possibility that the content of the Defendant’s speech would not have been known as it is; (b) it cannot be said that there was a possibility of spreading to an unspecified or many unspecified persons through the victim or a third party; and (c) it cannot be said that there was no “public performance”.

Examining the lower court’s fact-finding and judgment in light of the records, the lower court’s judgment that acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case is acceptable, and there is no illegality of mistake of facts

(The children of the Defendant cannot be seen as a person who is likely to spread in the determination of performance, and the passing of the decision is likely to not know the content of the Defendant’s statement itself). 3. Conclusion of the Prosecutor’s Appeal is dismissed.