The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On March 15, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 20:50 on March 15, 2014, the Defendant demanded the victim F (54 years of age) who was in front of the said restaurant to move the said restaurant in order to enter the said restaurant; (b) on the ground that the victim did not respond to the request, the Defendant requested the said restaurant parking manager G and 10 persons, while there are 10 persons, the Defendant: (c) “Is the Republic of Korea taxi driver will take a bath; (d) Is the cab; (e) Is the me; and (e) Is the me.”

D. The victim openly insultingd the victim by referring to a large frienda.

2. The “public performance” in the crime of insult refers to the state in which many, unspecified or unspecified persons can be recognized. Thus, if there is a possibility that a certain fact about a certain person might be disseminated to an unspecified or unspecified person, the requirements of the public performance are satisfied, but if there is no possibility that it might spread differently, the public performance is lacking.

(See Supreme Court Decision 83Do49 delivered on April 10, 1984). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court are: (a) at the time when the defendant takes a bath to the victim, the victim appears to have only been the victim, the defendant, and the father of the defendant; and (b) the victim argued from the defendant that there was a traffic agent G, the parking manager at the crosswalk (6-3 pages) or a tourist bus engineer (legal statement) waiting for the vehicle operated by the defendant's father at the crosswalk, but G consistently stated that he was not at the site to park the vehicle operated by the defendant's father at the time of the defendant's taking a bath to the victim; (c) the traffic controller waiting at the crosswalk at the crosswalk at the time of the defendant's taking a bath to the victim was at the vicinity of the road according to the pedestrian signal; and (d) the tourist bus article was considerably far away from the taxi operated by the defendant.