The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles) is as follows: (a) the Defendant had no intent to insult the victim at the time of speaking as stated in the instant facts charged; and (b) thus, the instant facts charged does not constitute a crime of insult

2. The offense of insult as referred to in the crime of insult is an expression of an abstract judgment or a sacrific sentiment that may undermine the social assessment of a person without a statement of facts (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3972, Nov. 28, 2003, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the act of the Defendant’s words such as health team in this case, “domine” against the victim, and “unfair gue” expressed an abstract judgment or a sacrific sentiment that may undermine the social assessment of the victim without a factual reason. As such, the act of the Defendant’s assertion falls under an objective insult even in view of other circumstances of the Defendant’s assertion (the culture of the company or the relevant industry run by the Defendant, is somewhat somewhat going through the culture of the company or the relevant industry, and the victim’s perceptions the Defendant with a large number of complaints, accusations, and sacrifies with the victim’s employees, etc.).

B. In light of the above, even if there was no active and conclusive intention to insult the victim, insofar as the Defendant had been sufficiently aware of the fact that the victim made a speech that constitutes an objective insult and that it was only a decrease in the victim’s social evaluation, the Defendant cannot deny the criminal intent on the premise that there was no intention to insult.

Therefore, the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

3. The defendant's appeal is without merit. Thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.