The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of committing the instant crime, there were only two persons E and C, known to both the Defendant and the victim as well as the above two persons, and the place of committing the instant crime is not open to the public, but also within the closed representative office of the apartment building. It is difficult to view that the performance is recognized.

B. In light of the objective meaning content and the fact that the Defendant’s expression “I do not know, I do not know,” as stated in the facts charged, it cannot be deemed as a satisfying expression against the victim in itself in light of the fact that the expression “I do not know.”

C. Even if it is not so, the illegality of the Defendant’s words above in light of the circumstance and motive of the Defendant’s words as above, the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, etc. is excluded as an act that does not go against the social norms.

2. Determination

A. On June 16, 2012, at around 16:30 on June 16, 2012, the Defendant publicly insultingd the victim D(L) who had a dispute with C, before the entrance of the Dong-gu apartment building representative office, Kim Jong-si, Kim Jong-si, with the large interest of “I do not have any difficulty, I do not have any difficulty, and do not have to do so.”

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence.

C. The public performance of the crime of defamation or insult refers to a state in which many and unspecified persons can be recognized. Thus, if there is a possibility that a certain fact about a specific person might be disseminated to an unspecified or unspecified person, even if they talk about such fact, it shall be deemed that the performance of the crime is lacking if it satisfies the requirements of performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Do49, Apr. 10, 1984). The record reveals that there was E and C in addition to the victim at the time of the crime of this case, and that there was many unspecified persons through the above two persons.