The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is not only the elements of the offense of insult but also the act that violates the social rules, and thus its illegality is also recognized. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which acquitted the Defendant on the ground that it does not violate the social rules, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The Defendant is a planning director of the instant facts charged.

Around 15:00 on May 4, 2014, the Defendant expressed the Defendant’s desire to “I see, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am in the above D office.”

Accordingly, the Defendant publicly insultingd the victim.

3. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment: “In full view of the evidence as indicated in its reasoning, it may acknowledge the Defendant’s abusive intent as stated in the facts charged, and the performance may also be recognized; however, the insult referred to in the crime of insult is an expression of abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment which could undermine the people’s social evaluation without a statement of fact, and even in a case where a certain expression contains especially insulting expressions, if such expression can be viewed as an act that does not contravene the social norms in light of the sound social norms of the times, the illegality is exceptionally dismissed pursuant to Article 20 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1433, Jul. 10, 2008; 1) the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence of the lower judgment; 2) the Defendant and the victim pursuant to the question about the operation of the company and new operation of the company; and 3) the Defendant’s answer or omission in the Defendant’s training program.