The judgment below

The part concerning the insult of the person on May 28, 2015 is reversed.

The sentence shall be pronounced against the defendant.

1. We affirm the lower court’s finding the Defendant not guilty of the insult of May 29, 2015 among the facts charged in the instant case.

However, Kakao is a case in which many and unspecified persons are open to the public among the defendant, so it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant's notice is referred to E, so the victim is specified as E.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant.

2. Determination

A. On May 28, 2015, the summary of the charges No. 1 (hereinafter “instant charges”) No. 1 is a certified intermediary operating “D real estate” located on the first floor of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the victim E is an employee in charge of assisting the said real estate brokerage office from around April 20, 2015 to May 26, 2015.

On May 28, 2015, the Defendant visited the Defendant’s residence located in F. 507 at the Gambling-si of Gyeonggi-si, and made the said D real estate transaction, referred to as “G” the victim to an account bulletin board in the name of the unspecified customers who had access to the said D real estate and the neighboring real estate intermediaries, who had access to the said D real estate, and the Defendant’s account bulletin board in which the persons related to the neighboring real estate brokers could have access.

”, “ 뭐 던 받는 데만 익숙한 지독한 공주 꽈” 등의 내용으로 글을 게시하여 공연히 피해자를 모욕하였다.

(2) The lower court determined that the Defendant specified the victim as E solely on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, in light of the following: (a) as to the facts charged No. 1, the witness I first appeared to have been written by the Defendant; and (b) the evidence presented by the prosecutor that the Defendant expressed that he would have thought that he had been written by the witness I to have been written by the Defendant

The Court rendered a not guilty verdict on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it and there is no other evidence.

(3) However, the lower court’s determination is acceptable for the following reasons.