The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There is no performance because there was no person on the steel platform at the time of the occurrence of the mistake of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The public performance of the offense of insult in the crime of insult refers to the state in which an unspecified person or a large number of people can be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do8155, Feb. 14, 2008; 2008Do2422, Jul. 10, 2008). Since the offense of insult is sufficient to openly indicate abstract judgments that may undermine a human external reputation, it does not require a third party to recognize it at the time of display (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934, Jun. 25, 2004).

B. We examine the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the first offender who has no criminal power as an elderly citizen, etc. is favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the crime of this case was committed unilaterally against the victim, which means that the defendant would not repair his bridge for a considerable period of time, and the nature of the crime was poor in light of the circumstances leading to the crime, and the victim seems to have suffered considerable mental damage due to the crime of this case, and the fact that the defendant was not against the defendant is disadvantageous to the defendant.

The above circumstances and other circumstances after the crime of this case.