The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant's insulting speech to the victim is not from the process of presenting his opinion on the public issue, but from the personal appraisal or complaint against the victim. This behavior does not violate the social norms.

Although the facts charged in this case cannot be seen as being contrary to the social norms

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that it erred by mistake.

2. In full view of the following circumstances: (a) the relationship between the Defendant and C; (b) the process and frequency of the Defendant’s statement; (c) the meaning and overall context of the statement; (d) the degree and proportion of insulting expressions; (c) the place where the statement was made and the circumstances before and after the statement; (d) the Defendant sought a representative meeting to present his/her opinion on the contents of the meeting’s work at the representative meeting of apartment occupants; (e) the Chairperson C attempted to neglect the Defendant and to neglect his/her conditions only for the Defendant; (e) the Defendant took place against the discriminatory treatment of the Defendant; (e) the Defendant took place, in so far, the Defendant set up against C; (e) the Defendant’s indecent and anti-defasible expressions were limited to once; (e) the Defendant took a very small portion in light of the overall conversation; and (e) the place where the statement was made was made was made in accordance with the Chairperson C’s work; and (e) dialogues related to the work of the Defendant for 30 minutes after the Defendant’s question.

On the ground that it is reasonable to view the instant facts charged, the lower court acquitted the Defendant.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the above act by the defendant is stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act.