The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not wish the victim as stated in the facts charged (misunderstanding of facts). Even if such remarks were made, such remarks were made.

It can not be seen as an expression that would undermine the external reputation of the victim, even if it displayed the decentralization of the situation at the time.

The Defendant’s speech made to the victim is not established as a crime of insult because there is no person other than the victim, and there is no performance (misunderstanding of legal principles). 2.

A. On March 22, 2017, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the victim D was only a non-resident in the street before the Daegu Water-gu Management Office of Manymion, Daegu on March 22, 2017, and based on the fact that the victim D had personnel management for the Defendant and did not receive personnel, the Defendant was “I am to the Defendant.”

The victim openly insultingd the victim by referring to a large sound.

B. The Defendant and the defense counsel in the judgment of the court below did not have the same words as the Defendant stated in the facts constituting an offense.

Even if the expression of decentralization on the situation at the time does not constitute an expression that may undermine the external reputation of the victim, and the victim asserts that there is no person to perform his or her bath other than the defendant and the victim.

① Based on the witness D and E’s respective legal statements, the lower court acknowledged the fact that the Defendant made an insulting speech against the victim as indicated in its holding, and ② such speech is not merely limited to the degree of expressing the victim’s reputation, but can be deemed an insulting act that is likely to undermine the victim’s personal value. ③ The place where the instant crime was committed was located immediately adjacent to the apartment building, and the Defendant told the victim to the effect that “the instant speech” was “the victim.