The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The gist of the grounds of appeal and the misapprehension of the legal doctrine: The Defendant did not insult the victim as stated in the facts charged, and even if the Defendant was found to have insulting the victim, the place of the instant case was a self-harm room in a private teaching institute with three persons of friendship with the victim, and thus public performance exists.

It can not be seen that it is an expression from the process of giving a decoration as the president of a private teaching institute, and thus, it cannot be viewed as an act contrary to social norms, so illegality is dismissed.

The point of injury: although the defendant abuseds the victim, it is different from the part of the injury, so it cannot be recognized that the fact of injury is (blord: head, upper jum, and the part of the bodily injury: left face and clothes). Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of all the facts charged of this case.

The sentence of the lower court (one million won in penalty) against the illegal defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant’s insult of the victim as stated in the instant facts charged can be acknowledged by taking the victim’s abusive language as such.

Victims E consistently state the fact of damage (the trial record 101 pages). At the time of the instant case, they were in the same habitary room.

F also stated in the court of the court below that “the Defendant stated in the court of the court of the court below that “the Defendant was making the victim the words “the victim’s feas with less human beings, less feasible,” (the trial record 122 pages),” and that G made a statement that he would not know about the above part and expressed his desire.

In light of the facts stated in the statement (the trial record 116 pages), etc., the defendant can fully recognize the fact of insulting the victim E as stated in the facts charged in this case.

In this case, other students freely enter the school room operated by the defendant.