A. The text written by the Defendant of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is merely an abstract expression of the victim’s act.

Even if the expression of a defendant contains a somewhat insulting expression, the defendant's act does not violate social rules in light of the victim's status, motive of the defendant's writing, circumstances of the case, etc.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (700,000 won of fine) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant made the same assertion in the lower court, and the lower court acknowledged the facts charged against the Defendant on the grounds of the circumstances duly admitted and investigated evidence, and determined that the Defendant’s act constituted an act in violation of the social rules.

The defendant's practice is an expression that undermines the social evaluation of the victim by using an sacratic abstract expression, and the posting of such an article constitutes insult. Even if considering the contents, form, method, context, situation at the time of each expression used by the defendant, it cannot be viewed as an act that does not violate the social rules.

The judgment of the court below cannot be said to contain an error of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant, and this part of the defendant's assertion is

B. In full view of the grounds for sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments of the instant case regarding the assertion of unfair sentencing, the lower court appears to have been reasonably determined by fully considering all the circumstances, including the various grounds for sentencing alleged by the Defendant, and no special circumstance exists to the extent that the lower court’s sentence is modified.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.