The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant made a statement as stated in the facts in the judgment of the court below, there is no person who has clearly heard the Defendant’s remarks, and the Defendant’s remarks are somewhat contingent expressions in the process of claiming a return of goods, and thus, it does not constitute an insulting speech, and thus, constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate social rules and thus constitutes a justifiable act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. 1) In the crime of insult, the public performance refers to a state in which many and unspecified persons can recognize the public performance, and the offense of insult is sufficient to openly indicate an abstract judgment that may undermine the external reputation of people. Thus, if a third party at the time of display is in a state where he can recognize it (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934 delivered on June 25, 2004, etc.), it does not necessarily require the third party to recognize it (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934 delivered on June 25, 2004, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the court below and the legal statement of F of the witness of the trial of the party, F was satisfyed from the street at the time of the instant case and satisfyed and satisfyed, and it can be recognized that there was no person who actually recognized the specific contents of the Defendant’s speech.

In addition to the fact that the establishment of the offense of insult does not interfere with the establishment of the offense of insult, the performance of insult is recognized since the defendant made a statement as described in the facts charged in this case with many and unspecified persons.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

(b)an act of political party;