The insult referred to in the offense of insult is not a statement of fact, but a statement of abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that may undermine people's social evaluation is expressed.

Even in cases where a certain statement contains an insulting expression, considering the motive or background, overall purport, specific method of expression, logical and objective validity of the premised fact, overall relation with the overall contents of the statement, etc., if the statement is merely a use of partially insulting expression in the course of emphasizing that the statement is objectively reasonable, based on the premise that it is objectively reasonable, its own opinion on the factual relation or issues surrounding the factual relation, and the attitude the victim took place, etc., and that it is nothing more than that of the victim’s own decision and opinion, barring any other special circumstances, it is deemed that it does not contravene social norms, and thus, it is unlawful in accordance with Article 20 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do9411, Feb. 28, 2008). The court below reversed the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant on the ground that the statement contained an insulting expression in the facts charged in this case, as it does not violate Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

The above determination by the court below is in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds for excluding insult.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.