The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

It is the victim, the police officer in mobilization, and one second-class tenant.

The defendant's abusive theory was not in a situation where many unspecified or unspecified people hear the defendant's abusive theory, and the abusive theory does not have the possibility of spreading when considering the relationship between people and victims, so the defendant is not subject to insult.

The sentence of the lower court on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Public performance in the crime of insult of a misunderstanding of the legal principles refers to a state in which an unspecified or many people can recognize the same as a public performance in the crime of defamation.

(2) The crime of insult is likely to be committed by a third party at the time of display, and a third party is not necessarily required to be aware of it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934, Jun. 25, 2004). The following circumstances are acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below: (a) the place where the defendant committed the crime in this case is a multi-family house in which the victim resides; (b) the two tenants of the multi-family house in which the defendant and the two tenants of the above multi-family house who do not have any trust or personal relationship with the defendant were expressed to the victim; and (c) the two tenants of the above multi-family house in which the defendant and the two tenants of the above multi-family house who do not have any awareness of the defendant’s desire to commit the crime of insult are likely to have a public performance or insult, taking into account the following circumstances:

The defendant's assertion of legal principles is not accepted.

The appellate court's judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is compared with the first instance court.