The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In the crime of insult as referred to in the crime of insult does not state a fact and expresses an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that may undermine people's social evaluation. Even in cases where a certain article contains such insulting expressions, the motive, circumstance, and background behind posting the article, the overall purport of the article, specific method of expression, the logical and objective validity of the premise, the proportion of the facts in the whole text as well as the overall contents thereof, etc., on the premise that the article is objectively reasonable in terms of facts, and the degree of the victim's attitude and opinion were used in the process of emphasizing that one's own judgment and opinion are reasonable, and the court below's judgment that held that it is unlawful by the victim's free speech or demonstration was not in violation of social norms, and thus, it should be deemed that the victim's free speech or demonstration was denied by Article 20 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do328, Nov. 28, 2003; Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3278, etc.).

As to the part of the facts charged in the instant case where a public insultd the victim by posting comments on the content of a simple and intangible voice, regarding the part of the comments, “a simple and intangible human screening,” the following circumstances as stated in its reasoning, namely, a representative of an organization “E,” which is a representative of an organization “E,” which contains his speech, his race discrimination.