The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Among the Defendant’s statement of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the expression “humanly below” refers to the victim’s expression, and constitutes a sacriffic expression that denies the victim’s personal value, and the expression “unqualified for complaint” refers to the expression that impairs the social evaluation of the victim’s complaint as a management complaint, and all of the above remarks constitute the elements of the crime of insult.

However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged, around August 8, 2016, the Defendant, at the time of Jinju-si, had the management office of the apartment complex, the representative meeting of the occupants of the apartment complex, and the head of the management office of the above apartment building re-construction on the wind that the rooftop waterproof construction works are poor, and the residents demanded that the victim D, the managing director of the Do, be instructed to continue to perform the work in order to avoid penalty against the human body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the managing director, and that the victim D, who is the managing director, should be instructed to continue to perform the work in order to avoid penalty against the body of the body of the body of the body

B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s victim resisted to the implementation of the instant apartment rooftop waterproof construction, and that it is unclear whether the Defendant’s statement of “human et al.” in the Defendant’s statement was referred to as “unqualified for complaint” to the victim, but it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s statement of “unqualified for complaint” would undermine the social assessment of the victim’s personal value, although it appears that the Defendant’s statement of “unqualified for complaint” was an inevitable and indecent expression that may discomfore the other party,” and that it is difficult to deem it to undermine the social assessment of the victim’s personal value.

(c)

The judgment of the court below is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.