The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant's insulting remarks made by the victim are likely to spread to many and unspecified persons, and the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The judgment of the court below revealed the following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below: ① The victim stated to the effect that there was a person who was scambling at the crosswalk near the site at the time of the instant case from the investigative agency to the court of the court below; however, the police officer G, who was called at the time of the court of the court below, stated to the effect that the site was front of the gas station and the person who was scambling, and that there was no person who was scambling (the trial record No. 83); ② The police officer G stated to the effect that he was unscambling at the time of the police officer H level (the trial record No. 95,97 page); ② the police officer G stated to the effect that the defendant was 1m away from the defendant at the court of the court of the court below, and that there was no memory that the victim was scambling (the trial record No. 83 pages).

However, it was not a situation in which others can hear due to vehicle noise, etc. while leaving a five-lane road.

In light of the fact that the Defendant stated (Evidence No. 25 of the evidence record), ③ Police Officers H stated in the court of the court below that the Defendant told the victim as the victim was fluored, but did not talk with a large voice (the page No. 97 of the trial record), etc., the Defendant did not have a possibility of spreading the victim’s horses to many and unspecified persons.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable.