The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of trial in the trial shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In spite of the fact that the Defendant had expressed a desire to do so to the victim as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged in the instant case.

B. In light of the legal principles, even if the Defendant had expressed the victim’s desire as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, it was only the Defendant, victim, and E at the time of the instant case, and considering the relationship between E and the victim, such as the fact that E was a subordinate subject to direction and supervision by the victim, and whether to employ the victim continuously, E did not have any possibility of spreading the same insult as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the public performance of the offense of insult.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact of openly insulting the victim by openly insulting the victim to the victim, who is the head of the management office, in the location where the security guard E is located, as shown in the instant facts charged. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

① The victim stated consistently from the investigative agency to the lower court that he had expressed his desire from the Defendant on the date and time stated in the instant facts charged.

The statements of the victim are specific and consistent to the extent that they cannot be made without direct experience, and credibility is not contradictory to the statements of witnesses E and other evidences.

(2) E, a security guard, shall also be from an investigative agency to the original judgment.