All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal was that the Defendants were the roads where the victims expressed their desire as stated in the instant facts charged, and thus, vehicle passengers who used the said roads were sufficiently aware of the Defendants’ desire to take care of the victims.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants of all the facts charged of this case despite the fact that the Defendants had openly insulting the victims, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the offense of insult and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The lower court found the Defendants not guilty on the grounds that, although the Defendants intended the victims to talk at the time and place indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, the victims were only the victims at that time, and there were no other persons, including H, and thus, it cannot be deemed that performance exists even if the Defendants took a bath as stated in the instant facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the prosecutor charged the Defendants with reporting to the victims of the instant case, as stated in the court below, because H was not at the site at the time of the instant case, due to the fact that the Defendants did not look at the victim’s desire; ② according to the image taken in the situation at the time of the instant case, the instant case occurred during the new wall time; ③ the passage of the location at the time of the instant case appears to have never existed; ③ the passage of the vehicle was confirmed, but the road was passed without stopping at the site at the time, and the vehicle owner’s desire to the victims.