The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that there is no possibility that the content of the message sent by the defendant to many and unspecified persons by sending letters only to F having close business relations with the victim E and the content of the message sent by the defendant will not be disseminated. Thus, the statement of the defendant is

Even if not, the defendant's sending of letter messages to the victim's embezzlement was made in a way to verify the facts with F during the process of securing data on embezzlement, and it is a legitimate act of Article 20 of the Criminal Code.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) on August 8, 2014, the Defendant embezzled by the victim who operated his/her own and DNA screen golf club using his/her mobile phone at an influence place; and (b) on August 8, 2014,

During the process of collecting the materials, the victim refers to F's cellular phone that installed air conditioners in the above golf course as "domine", and "F's Domine" is fixed between the f's hand number and the f's request was finished in a new and historical manner.

It is difficult to see what he obtains in advance the fact that he made double transactions with Domine.

The phrase “the text of this case” (hereinafter “the text of this case”) shall be sent.

In other words, the victim was openly insultingd.

3. Determination

A. In the crime of insult, “public performance” refers to a state in which many, unspecified or unspecified persons can be recognized, and even if there is a possibility that a certain fact about a specific person might be disseminated to an unspecified or unspecified person, if it meets the requirements of performance, it lacks performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Do49, Apr. 10, 1984). (b) Meanwhile, the following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.

1) While the Defendant and the victim purchased land and constructed a building in 201 and operated a screen golf course for the same business, the victim without the consent of the Defendant.