The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is a person who operates a general restaurant “C” in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

On November 30, 2008, the Defendant attached a large banner stating that “C” in the above “C,” located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, had a person who is the deceased, to be tried by the law, who is a broadcast from a false professional camping-gu, and posted it from around that time to December 2 of the same year.

However, the above banner was installed to the extent that the entire signboard of the above “C” operated in the form of an indoor packing machine, and it was installed in a place where anyone can see not only the customers who find it but also the person who passed through the route.

Accordingly, the Defendant insulting the victim E which is a patent victim.

2. The offense of insult is a crime falling under Article 311 of the Criminal Act, in which a public prosecution may be instituted only when the victim files a complaint in accordance with Article 312(1) of the Criminal Act. Article 230(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a complaint may not be filed after the lapse of six months from the date on which the victim becomes aware of the offense subject to

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the victim was accused of the fact that on October 13, 2009, at the time when the victim was accused of fraud and was investigated by the police, the victim had submitted a photograph attached with the banner of this case while complaining of the victim's damage caused by the defendant (the investigation record 216 to 218 pages). On November 3, 2011, the victim submitted a written complaint demanding the defendant to file a complaint on the grounds of the facts charged in this case, and attached a photograph identical to the photograph submitted by the police prior to the filing of the complaint. According to the above facts of recognition, the victim was aware of the fact that at least the defendant had affixed the banner of this case before October 13, 2009. Accordingly, the victim became aware of the fact that the victim had affixed the banner of this case.