모욕
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not wish the Victim E and I as described in the instant facts charged, and even if he had expressed a desire, this was merely an act of simple conclusion, but the lower court convicted the Defendant by misunderstanding the facts and sentenced him to a judgment of conviction.
2. The offense of insult is an offense established when a person is openly insulting (Article 311 of the Criminal Act). It is a legal interest to protect an external reputation, meaning a social evaluation of the value of a person.
Here, insult means expressing an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that could undermine the social reputation of a person without expressing facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Do739, May 12, 1987; 2003Do3972, Nov. 28, 2003). The offense of insult is established by openly expressing an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that could undermine the external reputation of the victim. As such, the victim’s external reputation is not practically infringed or is not likely to be infringed specifically and practically (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do9674, Oct. 13, 2016). Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court at C.C.’s office, the Defendant is deemed to have expressed the victim E in the same manner as “after the victim’s 2017Do3972, Oct. 26, 2017.”
In full view of the contents of the Defendant’s statement and the surrounding circumstances at the time, the Defendant, at the time, expressed a desire to bring about the victims in the process of disputing with the victims.