The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors or misapprehension of the legal principles) stated that the Defendant had management offices, such as D, at the time of insulting the victim, at the time of the Defendant’s insulting act against the victim. However, the said employees are in a relationship with the victim, but they do not have a relative relationship or a specially-friendly relationship. As such, the content of insulting act may be disseminated by the said employees. Thus, performance can be sufficiently recognized.

2. Determination

A. In order for a public performance to be recognized in the legal doctrine on the public performance of the offense of insult to be recognized, the insult is sufficient if the act of insult is performed in a state where many and unspecified persons can be recognized, and even if it is performed in a state where only a certain minority can be recognized, the requirements for the public performance are satisfied.

(See Supreme Court Decision 83Do49 delivered on April 10, 1984). B.

The lower court determined that the Defendant was not guilty of the facts charged of the offense of insult, on the premise that the requirements for the public performance were identical to the aforementioned legal doctrine, and the circumstance that the Defendant was only employed by the management office, such as D, at the time of the Defendant’s insulting act against the victim, and that other general public had access to the management office does not appear. As such, it is insufficient to recognize the public performance because the Defendant’s insulting act is difficult to deem by the employees of the management office that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

C. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the following facts are recognized.

1) The Defendant is a co-owner of a building B, which is an aggregate building in Guro-gu SeoulJ, and the victim is the head of the management office of the said aggregate building. 2) The Defendant and the victim have a dispute regarding the management method of the said aggregate building, and even on December 27, 2018, which is at the time of the instant case, are in dispute within the management office of the said aggregate building.