The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is nothing more than the legal opinion of the part that "the declaration of invalidation of a merger is null and void," and the part that "if it comes to be caused by an accusation with a construction cost, it shall be a statement of true facts," and the part that "We are bound by" is merely a statement of future affairs, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the statement of the defendant in the judgment of the court below constitutes an insult against the victim.

Since the defendant made a statement to the church believers as stated in the judgment in order to provide accurate information, and the victim was involved in the construction cost doctrine and was investigated by the police as a crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement), the above act is justified as it constitutes a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, as it does not violate the social rules.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below was pronounced guilty, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles that affected the judgment.

2. The offense of insult as referred to in the crime of insult is an expression of an abstract judgment or a sacrific sentiment, which does not indicate a fact, and even in a case where a certain article contains especially insulting expressions, if such expressions can be viewed as acts that do not violate the social norms in light of the sound social norms of the times, illegality is excluded exceptionally in accordance with Article 20 of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1433, Jul. 10, 2008). Comprehensively taking into account the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the Defendant’s statement can be deemed as an insulting speech that may damage the social evaluation of the victim’s personal value even if it is entirely adopted by the court below. Examining the circumstances surrounding the Defendant’s aforementioned remarks, etc., the Defendant’s victim is the victim.