A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant committed an act identical to the facts stated in the lower judgment in the public interest motive for other lessees who leased real estate from the victim, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The offense of insult as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine refers to an act permissible in light of the overall legal order or the social ethics or social norms, and the expression of an abstract judgment or a sacrific sentiment that may undermine a person’s social evaluation. Even in a case where a certain article contains especially insulting expressions, if such expression can be viewed as an act that does not violate the social norms in light of the sound social norms of the age, it shall be exceptionally dismissed pursuant to Article 20 of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1433, Jul. 10, 2008). The phrase “act that does not violate the social rules” under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act that is permissible in light of the overall legal order or its surrounding social ethics or social norms. Whether a certain act is justified as a legitimate act that does not contravene the social rules and thus, it should be reasonably determined by considering the purpose, method, means, and balance of the act in addition to the motive or method of the act’s act and its purpose.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2680, May 27, 2010). Expressions as stated in the facts constituting an offense in the lower judgment, such as the expression of “malicious” or “malicious” as indicated in the lower judgment, are the Defendant.