[2] The case holding that the defendant's expression of some of the articles written and posted in the viewers' opinion column after viewing the current broadcasting station news program is an insulting speech that may damage the social evaluation of the victim who is the contributor

[3] The case holding that even though some of the articles written and posted by the defendant in the viewer's opinion column on the broadcasting station homepage were insulting words, illegality is excluded as acts that do not violate the social rules under Article 20 of the Criminal Code

[2] The case holding that although the defendant viewed the current broadcast program and then made and posted a report on the viewer's opinion column on the broadcasting station homepage, the expression "I am write a serious self-refinite as a failure to defend himself/herself as a defense for committing a criminal act, it is a insulting speech that may damage the social evaluation of the victim, the contributor, even if he/she completely puts the notice

[3] The case holding that it is reasonable to view that some of the expressions in the writing written and posted by the defendant in the space of viewers' opinions on the broadcasting station homepage are used in part in the process of emphasizing the validity of one's own decision and opinion, and it does not violate the social rules, since they are used in part in the process of emphasizing that the contents of the victim's opinion and opinion should be reasonable after the premise of basic facts on the already broadcasted program.

The court below affirmed the judgment of the first instance that acquitted the victim on the ground that it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant’s writing written on the bulletin board is an expression of opinion that it is partially inappropriate and excessive expression in the expression of opinion (the contents of this article should be understood within the context of the overall context, and it is not determined solely by extracting only a part of this issue, and it does not mean that it is difficult to recognize that the victim’s social evaluation would be undermined by social norms).

2. In the crime of insult as referred to in the crime of insult, the expression of an abstract judgment or a sacrific sentiment that could undermine the people’s social evaluation without mentioning facts, and in particular, the expression of “the so-called sacrific consciousness is used as a failure to defend the defense for the act of committing a crime, i.e., the so-called sacrificism,” etc. in the written posted by the Defendant is deemed to be an insulting speech that may undermine the social evaluation of the victim, who is the teacher, even if all of the posted comments are written.

However, in light of the records, the court below's determination that the defendant viewed the motive, circumstance, and its background of writing on the bulletin board as follows: (a) viewed the program and expressed the victim's opinion on the basis of the perception of the program; (b) the difference between the broadcasting company and the victim's values or judgment; and (c) sought the victim's reply or counterargument against the victim's opinion; and (d) the whole contents of this article provide the victim with a fundamental cause of negligence as the mother who made the vehicle with illegal parking and son; and (c) the broadcasted contents are personal circumstances. Nevertheless, the victim did not think of his mistake; and (d) stated that it is based on the content of the already broadcasted program; and (e) whether such opinion or judgment itself is reasonable or not, and (e) it cannot be said that the content of the program and the content of the Defendant's speech, including the content of the broadcast program, cannot be said to be sufficient to support the victim's assertion that it constitutes a genuine and unlawful act of expression by the victim.

In light of these various circumstances, the Defendant’s expression of this case is based on the premise of the basic facts indicated in the already broadcasted program, and in such a case, it is reasonable to see that the act recorded in the facts charged is not contrary to the social rules, in part, in the process of considering the following: (a) the Defendant’s expression of this case is based on the premise of the basic facts indicated in the already broadcasted program; (b) the judgment of the towing company and the victim’s responsibility; and (c) whether it is reasonable for the victim to continue to demand disclosure of the loyalty market through the website, etc.; and (d) the victim’s presentation of his opinion by contributing to the broadcast; and (b)

Although the judgment of the court below differs from the reasoning of the judgment, the conclusion that the court below acquitted the defendant on the facts charged of this case is just and acceptable.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)