A. As stated in the facts charged in this case, it cannot be deemed that the victim specified the victim because the information about the victim was only the victim's clinic because the defendant prepared and posted the information on the bulletin board of a specific Internet camera as stated in the facts charged of this case. Thus, the offense of insult, which is protected by the law, is not established.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (70,000 won of fine) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the legal principles as to the assertion of insult 1) The legal interest of the offense of insult is the so-called external reputation, which is a social evaluation of the value of a person, and the person who is the subject of reputation does not necessarily have to express his/her name only when he/she is required to be a specific person. Thus, in cases where an expressive act without a person’s name is possible to identify which person is identified by comprehensively assessing the contents of the expression in light of the surrounding circumstances and the overall assessment, the offense of insult against the specific person constitutes a crime of insult (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da68306, May 10, 2002). However, even if only the victim’s Internet ID can be known, and even if considering other surrounding circumstances, it is difficult to find out who is the victim with such Internet ID, and it cannot be deemed that the victim was the victim of insult, the external reputation of which is the legal interest to protect the victim’s reputation, and thus, the crime of insult is not established (see, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2008Hun626.