A. The Defendant’s carrying of a prote-con is not to insult the victim, but to indicate that the person who prepared the writing is a sound that he knows.

Therefore, the defendant did not have any intention to insult the victim.

B. The instant notice only indicated the victim’s K ID, and the said K ID alone cannot be said to constitute a crime of insult because the victim was not specified.

C. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which found the Defendant guilty of insult.

2. Determination

A. According to the contents of the Internet D site’s interview with a third party in relation to the use of games, the author of the Internet D site’s comments on the contents of the conversation with the third party via K, and the third party’s comments on the contents of the above victim’s conversation, and the defendant posted a warning to criticize the contents of the above victim’s conversation, and it is recognized that the Defendant posted a satisfe-con with which the satisfe-con, like the facts charged in the instant case, was revealed.

According to the above facts, the defendant's writing on behalf of others can be sufficiently recognized that he had a prote-con which intentionally expresses an anti-scopic sentiment to criticize and insult the victim.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. The offense of insult as to whether a victim is specified is established by expressing a sacrific sentiment that may undermine the social assessment of a specific person or an organization possessing personality, and the victim must be identified (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do15631, Mar. 27, 2014). Even if the Internet comments do not infringe a specific person’s reputation by following the real name of a specific person, or do not state his/her real name, it can be identified that the expression is categorized as a specific person in light of the surrounding circumstances.