As such, the Defendant cannot be seen as having committed a insult. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be said to have committed a insult.

Therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.

2. Determination

A. Defendant and victim E are members who subscribed to the Internet mobile broadband “F”.

On March 25, 2015, at the time of stay at around 12:38, the Defendant: (a) connected the G house from G to H mobile phones; and (b) made a public insult on the bulletin column written by the victim around 12:04 on March 25, 2015, the Defendant written a letter stating that “In this case, the victim entered this case’s watch, and the victim did not have any applicable law.”

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the basis of each of the evidence indicated in its holding.

2) The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the court below and the court below, namely, ① the Defendant’s comments on the posting of the victim’s posted in the Internet mobile broadband “F” were published in writing. As such, as long as the Defendant posted a notice on the victim’s “this case’s e-mail,” as stated in the judgment of the court below, it is obvious that the victim was specified and the victim’s social value was impeded, ② the Defendant is merely an attempt to convert the issue into the issue in light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below and the court below. However, in light of the contents and purport of the above comments, and the content of the comments, the above assertion by the Defendant is not persuasive, and even through the content of the comments, the Defendant’s statement is not persuasive. < Amended by Act No. 3173, Mar. 1, 2007>