A. Although the Defendant posted an online community the same article as the facts charged (hereinafter “instant bulletin”), it merely merely expressed an opinion as an examinee, and it does not constitute “defluence” in the crime of insult, and there was no intention of insult.

B. The Defendant’s act of writing the instant notice constitutes an act that does not contravene social norms and thus, the illegality should be excluded pursuant to Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

2. Determination

A. The crime of insult is established when a person is openly insulting (Article 311 of the Criminal Act). The legal interest of the crime of insult is to protect the external reputation, namely, social evaluation of a person’s value. Here, the term “defluence” refers to the expression of an abstract judgment or disfasible sentiment, which may undermine a person’s social evaluation without mentioning facts.

In addition, the offense of insult is established by openly expressing an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that may undermine the external reputation of the victim. Thus, the external reputation of the victim is not practically infringed or the risk of infringement is not likely to be infringed specifically and practically.

(2) The following facts and circumstances are established based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court. (See Supreme Court Decision 2016Do9674, Oct. 13, 2016) (i.e., the Defendant’s writing containing the contents of criticism of the victim as stated in the facts charged on the online community bulletin; (ii) the overall purport of the Defendant’s writing, etc., taking into account the following factors: (a) it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant constitutes an insulting act that is likely to undermine the social assessment of the victim; and (c) the Defendant led to the confession of the facts charged in the instant case at the lower court.