A. It is difficult to say that the expressions written by the Defendant misunderstanding the legal doctrine on the E-state message are an insulting expression that could undermine the social assessment of the victim because they are ambiguous and cannot be said to have expressed a sacrific sentiment against the victim C.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances are acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below's decision as to the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles: (i) the victim at the time of the instant case was the vice president or the defendant was the victim's employee for more than two years; (ii) the victim's phone number stored the defendant's mobile phone was able to see the defendant's E-mail message; and (iii) the defendant's act of posting the victim in the Mesen within the Mesen where many people can see the victim's “C” or “C son”; and (iv) the defendant's act of expressing the victim in the Mesen within the Mesens where the victim's speech coexists and comments coexists within our language system where the victim's personality value could be undermined; and (v) even if the above victim's sexual intercourse or employment, etc. were considered within the above company, the victim's expression of the above facts charged and the victim's expression could not be sufficiently known as the victim's expression or warning.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed.