A. misunderstanding of the legal principles 1) The Defendants’ posted materials do not constitute the offense of insult, since the victim was not specified or only the company that the victim operated.

2) The Defendants’ posted comments on the basis of objective facts and emphasizing the validity thereof are merely a part of the use of partially weak insulting expressions in the process of emphasizing the validity thereof, and the illegality is excluded as it does not go against social norms.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (a fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In order to establish a crime of defamation of a person’s reputation, a person’s name is not necessarily required to be explicitly indicated, and thus, in a case where the expression of false facts without a person’s name can be identified by comprehensively determining the contents of the expression in light of the surrounding circumstances, it constitutes a crime of defamation of a specific person (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1226, Mar. 27, 2014); and the same applies to the offense of insult.

may be filed.

B) The lower court acknowledged that the Defendants explicitly pointed out H or G (one of the brands sold by H, but is actually used as a referring to H) as related to the contract between L and the victim’s personal enterprise “H” as follows based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendants’ content of the notice was indicated as to the contract between Pool Company D (in Korea, it was imported into E brand) and the victim’s personal enterprise, and ② H can easily specify its operator because it is not so large as to be a personal enterprise operated by the victimized party, and the Defendants were not to criticize the company, trademark, and goods itself, but to insult the subject who performed the act of concluding a distribution-based contract.