The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant made a statement to the victim by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, the offense of insult is not established due to lack of performance.

B. The punishment of the lower court is too heavy (3 million won).

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, “public performance” in the crime of insult refers to the state in which many and unspecified persons can be recognized. Although spreading facts to one person individually, if there is a possibility of spreading them to an unspecified or unspecified person, the requirement of performance does not meet the requirement of public performance, but if there is no possibility of spreading any other matter, the spread of facts to a specific person does not constitute public performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7497, Sept. 8, 2011). According to lawful evidence adopted by the court below, when the defendant makes a statement to the victim as stated in the judgment of the court below, two police officers are within the police box, two persons engaged in daily activities, and the victim E and the victim of property damage were committed, and the defendant was first aware due to the victim of property damage and the conduct and the crime of this case.

In light of the above circumstances, even though the victim's act of the police officer or the defendant's person's act was not likely to spread the insult out in light of the relation between the victim and the defendant, the victim of property damage and his behavior at least did not have any relation with the police officer as the victim of the crime of insult, and thus, there is a possibility that the horses made by the defendant to the victim's patrolmen may be disseminated to the unspecified or many unspecified persons through E and his behavior.

It shall be fully recognized.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that public performance is not recognized in the crime of insult is without merit.

B. As to the unfair argument of sentencing, considering the following factors: the Defendant’s age, character and character character and intelligence environment, the motive and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., and all the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant arguments and records.