Even though it was used in the process of correcting erroneous processes related to redevelopment project and it does not violate social norms, the court below rejected the evidentiary materials submitted by the defendant as evidence and found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges. The court below erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence and misunderstanding of facts.

2. Determination

A. In the crime of insult as to the assertion that a person does not constitute insult, the expression of insult is an expression of an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that could undermine the social assessment of the person without a statement of facts (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3972, Nov. 28, 2003). In particular, among the contents written by the Defendant on the Internet Rober website, it is sufficient to view that the expressions, such as “for eating money or sacrine by leaving in cooperation with the modern people who have been sacrifed in a sacrife”, “the food drink who has already been sacriffed with the remaining body,” “the siffess of the year and the end of the judgment” expressed an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that could undermine the social assessment of the victim, and thus constitutes insult against the victim.

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

B. Even in cases where a written determination on the assertion of a political party’s act contains an insulting expression, it is objectively reasonable in light of the motive, circumstance, and background behind the posting of the written text, the overall purport of the written text, the specific method of expression, the logical and objective validity of the premised fact, the proportion of the insulting expressions in the entire text, and the relation with the overall content.