The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and legal principles) is that the Defendant continued and repeatedly used the expression “person prior to private school expenses” and such expression cannot be deemed as a minor insulting expression. As such, the lower level of infringement of the outcome of the means is denied, and the illegality of the purpose is also denied, since it was written with the intent to criticize the victim, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s use of the expression “person prior to private school expenses” was a minor insulting expression.

2. The offense of insult as referred to in the crime of insult does not indicate facts, and expresses an abstract judgment or a sacrific sentiment that could undermine a person’s social evaluation. Even in the case where an article contains such insulting expressions, in consideration of 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 presumed fact, the degree of the insulting expressions in the whole article, and the relation between the overall contents, etc., it shall be deemed that the article’s opinion on its factual basis, surrounding issues, and the attitude the victim took place, on the premise that it is objectively reasonable. If it is nothing more than the use of partially insulting expressions in the process of emphasizing one’s own judgment and opinion, it shall be deemed unlawful by Article 20 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do2631, Dec. 28, 2003; 200Do3278, Apr. 26, 2012). 207