The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is that the instant traffic accident occurred due to the obvious mistake of the victim, but the victim tried to change the victim's own attitude to excess his responsibility to the defendant, and this is merely a form of confusion that the defendant expressed his desire to do so. As such, the Defendant did not publicly insult the victim as stated in the facts charged of the instant case.

In addition, the illegality of the defendant's objectively in such a situation is excluded as it does not violate the social rules.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby convicted the Defendant.

2. The judgment of the court below is consistent with the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the evidence, namely, ① the victim C has consistently expressed from the investigative agency to the court below that “in the event that there is an insurance company’s staff member, etc., the defendant took a bath at a large level as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment below,” ② the defendant stated that “An insurance company’s staff D who was dispatched to the scene for receiving and processing insurance after the occurrence of the instant traffic accident, as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below.” In light of the fact that the defendant made a statement to the purport that it is “,” ③ the defendant made a statement to the purport that it would go against a specific counterpart, and such a bath theory is reasonable to deem that it is difficult to view it as a mere form of confusion, as argued by the defendant, as argued by the defendant, it is difficult to view that the defendant publicly insulting the victim as stated in the judgment of the court below.