Therefore, although the Defendant’s writing cannot be deemed as an insult against the victim, and rather constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social norms, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of relevant legal principles.

2. In the crime of insult as referred to in the crime of insult is not a statement of fact but a statement of abstract judgment or a sacrific sentiment that may undermine people's social evaluation (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2025, Aug. 21, 2008). Even if the filing of a matter of public concern should be widely permitted, the method of public concern should be ensured so that it is not allowed in bad faith without supporting specific circumstances, and even if it is based on specific circumstances, the method of expression should be selected on the basis of respecting the personality of the other party. Even if there is any matter of criticism, if there is a personal attack by a sacrific expression, it cannot be established as a legitimate act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4408 Decided April 24, 2008). The following circumstances recognized by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the part of the article written by the defendant on the Twitter, which "the defendant's act of the same student with his/her husband and wife and his/her husband and wife" was an expression of abstract judgment or anti-destructive sentiment that may undermine the social evaluation of the victim. ② The defendant's writing was about the public concern about the victim's collective attack.