The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although it is recognized that the misunderstanding of the legal doctrine stated in the facts charged, the crime of insult is not established, since there was no performance.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles, performance in the crime of insult refers to a state in which many and unspecified persons can be recognized, so if there is a possibility that certain facts may be disseminated to an unspecified or unspecified person even if they talk about a specific person, it satisfies the requirements for performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Do49, Apr. 10, 1984). According to the evidence, the law office, which is the place of the crime of this case, had 4-5 employees, including F and H, at the time of the bath of September 9, 2015, had 4-5 employees, including F, I, and 4-5 employees including F, H, and I at the time of the bath of September 10, 2015, it is recognized that both F, H, and I were employees working at the office of the law firm, and that the F, H, and I had special interests with the victim or the victim, who did not spread the content of the instant abusive.

Inasmuch as the circumstances are not verified at all, there was a possibility that the instant bath theory could be disseminated to an unspecified or many unspecified persons.

The decision is judged.

Therefore, the defendant's misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. In light of the fact that the victim expressed the victim’s desire on the following day as to the wrongful argument of sentencing, and the victim still wanted to punish the Defendant, and that there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to be unfair because it is too too too unreasonable, in view of the fact that there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment, since the materials for new sentencing are not submitted

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit.