The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, at the time of the filing of the appeal, took a bath in the form of a mixed language without knowing whether or not the students were inside the private teaching institute that operated the victim, and did not publicly insult the victim.

2. The crime of insult is a dangerous crime, and the performance of which at that time means a situation where an unspecified or many people can be recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7497, Sept. 8, 201, etc.). The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court: ① The place where the instant crime was committed falls under the internal corridor of the building where multiple private teaching institutes gather, and the crime was committed at the beginning of the first half of the year; ② the Defendant was aware that at the time, he was engaged in lessons only at the school; ② the Defendant was aware that the victim was working at the school; ② even before the day of the instant case, the victim was able to be informed of the situation that the victim was able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have.

H and I have expressed the victim’s desire at an investigative agency.

In full view of the fact that the witness G of the court below testified that the defendant had made a great desire for the victim, the defendant is the educational institute of the victim at the time.