Although the defendant posted the comments as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter referred to as "the comments of this case"), since the victim written a statement of publicity different from the title of the article in the intent to enhance reader's inquiry, it is merely written that it refers to the expression "rain" and the defendant prepared the comments of this case in order to hear opinions to the reader at the time, the defendant's act does not constitute a crime of insult. Nevertheless, the judgment below convicting the defendant of the facts of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of insult.

2. Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① as the defendant stated in an investigative agency, the term “rails” refers to the reporter who seriously undermines the level of the personal mechanism with the term “synthetic language, syntheic and negative title and content,” which is deemed to be an expression of abstract judgment or appraisal that may undermine the social evaluation of the victim, and ② even before the instant comments are written, the Defendant already posted a number of comments that criticize or insult the victim by using such expressions as “a deadly weapons”, “a flag,” “a flag,” etc. before the instant comments are written,” and in light of the fact that the Defendant appears to have prepared the instant comments in concert with other comments rather than seeking other readers’ opinions, the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant insultd the victim by preparing the instant comments is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Sung (Presiding Judge)