The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant, by setting up the victim in front of his calculation team, did not cause the employee to be trained, and did not speak as indicated in the facts charged in the process of resisting such wife.

B. The expression “n't have any container” is a speculation with the meaning that there is no brush, and the Defendant has frequently used the expression that there is no usual example, and the Defendant did not think that the said expression constitutes an insulting speech, since it was often used by the people around the Defendant, it did not think that it constitutes an insulting speech.

The Defendant did not have the intention of insult, and the said expression does not constitute a case where he expressed an anti-defensive sentiment.

(c)

The defendant's statement has no public performance, and the defendant's act does not violate social rules in light of the circumstances of the defendant's statement.

2. Determination

A. The offense of insult is established when a person is openly insulting, not an insulting speech, or had no intention. (1) The offense of insult is a crime established when a person is insultd, which means a social evaluation of the value of a person. Here, insult refers to the expression of an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment, which is likely to undermine the social assessment of a person, without indicating any fact.

In addition, since the offense of insult is established by openly expressing an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that may undermine the external reputation of the victim, the victim’s external reputation is not practically infringed or the risk of actual infringement is not likely to occur (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do9674, Oct. 13, 2016, etc.). 2) In light of the above legal doctrine, the case is examined in light of the foregoing.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant is entitled to the D convenience store as stated in the judgment of the court below at the time of the instant case (hereinafter “instant store”).