A. Although the defendant's act of misunderstanding the legal principles is not related to the public interest, but should be acquitted on the grounds that there is no possibility of expectation of lawful act, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding the

B. The lower court’s sentence imposing a fine of KRW 700,00 on the Defendant is too unreasonable in light of the fact that the Defendant has endeavored to develop the high volume of unfair sentencing and that there are circumstances to take into account the developments leading to the occurrence of the instant case.

2. Determination:

A. The offense of insult in the misapprehension of the legal principle’s assertion refers to an act permissible in light of the overall legal order or the social ethics or social norms, and the expression of an abstract judgment or a sacrific sentiment that may undermine the people’s social evaluation. Even in a case where a certain article contains especially insulting expressions, if such expression can be deemed an act that does not violate the social norms in light of the sound social norms of the age, it shall be exceptionally dismissed pursuant to Article 20 of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1433, Jul. 10, 2008). The phrase “act that does not violate the social rules” under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act that is permissible in light of the overall legal order or its surrounding social ethics or social norms. Whether a certain act is justified as a legitimate act that does not contravene the social rules and thus, should be reasonably determined by considering the purpose, method, means, and balance of the act in addition to the motive or method of the act’s act and its purpose.

Supreme Court on May 27, 2010