A. The Defendant’s act of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is an act of expression of political opinion that considers the illegality of his assertion about the SNS remarks of the victim C, a incumbent member of the National Assembly at the time, and the quality of the member of the National Assembly. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged as a matter of course without considering the motive or illegality of the

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (200,000 won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, insult as referred to in the crime of insult is not a statement of fact, and an expression of abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that could undermine people’s social evaluation is not all unlawful. In particular, even though a statement containing insulting expressions is not all unlawful, if the contents of the statement, insult expressions exceed the level under which one’s own judgment and propriety are emphasized in view of the overall content or degree of the expression, etc., and if the expression in question is more emphasis on the expression of insulting sentiment against the victim, it is unlawful in violation of social rules (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do1453, Dec. 23, 2005; 2008Do1433, Jul. 10, 2008; 1). The lower court’s evidence duly admitted and investigated by the Plaintiff, i.e.,, the Seoul National Assembly member’s opinion, which was the basis for the victim’s resignation of military service, and the victim’s social examination of H in Seoul National Assembly.

The experts are such.