The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

A. Although misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles did not contain any content that could undermine the victim C’s social evaluation, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the offense of insult, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (fine 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the crime of mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the term “defluence” as referred to in the crime of insult of facts and insult of a person’s social evaluation is an expression of an abstract judgment or a satisfic sentiment that could undermine a person’s social evaluation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8917, Dec. 11, 2008). The Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is clear that the Defendant’s act of posting a letter by referring to the victim’s satisfed satisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisf is an expression of an abstract judgment or light

B. Although it is deemed that the Defendant did not agree with the victim until the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the sentencing, the Defendant found the “D” as to the Defendant’s acquisition of a large amount of money from the Defendant’s friendly E under the pretext of the Defendant’s intent to interfere with the right to demand the settlement of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the case, the Defendant did not appear to have committed the crime of the trial of this case as he did not have the victim, but did not have the degree of insulting expression.