Expenses of the trial shall be borne by the defendant.

A. On the day of the instant case, the Defendant misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine that the taxi engineer engaged in kidnapping the Defendant’s female-friendly implements on the same day, thereby misunderstanding the Defendant’s misunderstanding, but the taxi engineer expressed at the investigative agency that the taxi driver was bad and was not punished against the Defendant.

This is merely a mere expression of his own appraisal or towards the taxi engineer, and there was no intention to insult the victim police officer.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the offense of insult is established when a person openly insults another (Article 311 of the Criminal Act). It is a crime that legally protects an external reputation, namely, a social evaluation of a person’s value. Here, insult refers to the expression of an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that may undermine a person’s social assessment without a statement of fact.

In addition, the offense of insult is established by openly expressing an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that may undermine the external reputation of the victim, and thus, the victim’s external reputation is not practically infringed or the risk of actual infringement is not caused (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2016Do15264, Apr. 13, 2017; 2016Do9674, Oct. 13, 2016). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court: (a) in the course of the Defendant’s attempt to forcibly open the door of a taxi on which women-friendly job placement I was aboard; and (b) while the victimized police officers received statements from the scene, the police officers attempted to use violence again while intending to do so, even if the Defendant tried to do so.