The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of four million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (as to the part of the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant) is that the defendant's speech constitutes an insulting speech that infringes the victim's external reputation, but the external reputation was not insulting.

In light of the above, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The term “defluence” in the crime of insult refers to the expression of an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that could undermine the people’s social evaluation without revealing facts.

In addition, in cases where an insulting expression is mixed during the statement, the determination should be made by taking into account the motive, circumstance, and background during which the statement was made, overall purport of the statement, specific method of expression, the weight of the insulting expression in the entire statement as well as overall relation with the overall contents of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do1433, Jul. 10, 2008; 2008Do2025, Aug. 21, 2008). (b) The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the trial court by legitimate adoption of the relevant legal doctrine are, namely, whether the Defendant’s speech was erroneous during the statement.

“,” “Woo-to-bak governance see Mabk,” and “Ne-to-be public officials.”

The phrase "Wook", "Wook-hoo," "Wook-hoo," and "Wook-hooh" is an expression expressing the victim, who is a police officer, to destroy his or her social reputation by sculing or sculing the victim B, etc., as well as the police officer at the time, and the defendant used the victim's speech as an insulting speech rather than an insulting speech in order to clearly resist his or her arrest as a flagrant offender, and there is no circumstance to deem that the police officer's arrest as a flagrant offender is particularly unfair (the defendant of this case occurred on the date of the occurrence of this case) and there is no circumstance to justify such act of the defendant (the defendant of this case).