The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal principles 1) At the time of the Defendant’s statement as stated in the facts charged, only two police officers dispatched to D and D who had been instigated by the victim at the time of the Defendant’s speech as stated in the facts charged were allowed. Thus, it is difficult to view police officers or D as unspecified or large number of people, and there is no possibility of radio waves, and thus does not constitute the element of the crime of insult. 2) Considering the circumstances before and after the Defendant’s statement was made, the degree of insulting expressions, and the degree of insulting expressions before and after the Defendant’s statement, the victim again committed another crime of intrusion upon residence after the instant case, the Defendant’s statement does not violate social rules.

B. The sentence of the court below’s unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 500,000 won) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. Regarding the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, “public performance” in the crime of insult refers to the state in which many and unspecified persons can be recognized, and even if the facts are distributed to one person individually, if there is a possibility that the facts might be disseminated to an unspecified or many unspecified persons, the requirements for performance shall be satisfied. 2) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant at the time of speaking as described in the facts charged in the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government BBC (B) 02 around April 12, 2014, it can be known that at the same time the defendant made a statement as indicated in the facts charged at around 11:0, 2014 and two police officers dispatched after receiving the victim’s report from the victim with his/her business relationship. In D, it is reasonable to view that there is no possibility that the statement made by the defendant might be disseminated to an unspecified or many unspecified persons in view of the relationship with the victim. However, in case of 22 police officers, it is difficult to view that the statement by the defendant was obtained during the investigation process or leaked.