The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the victimized person was urged to make the comments of this case against H at the hearing, and there was no intention to insult the victim.

In addition, as the defendant has freedom of expression, the expression used by the defendant in this case does not constitute an insulting speech subject to punishment under the Criminal Act.

However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In the crime of insult, the term “comprehion” as referred to in the crime of insult refers to the expression of an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that may undermine a person’s social assessment without indicating a fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4408, Apr. 24, 2008). In the crime of insult, it is sufficient to recognize that the intent in the crime of insult is to indicate a judgment that may adversely undermine a person’s social assessment. Here, “patent” refers to a situation in which a large number of people or an unspecified person can be recognized.

In full view of the background behind the Defendant’s posting of the instant comments, the ordinary meaning and usage of the expression used in the comments, the contents of the text of the article posted the comments, the occupation and gender of the victim, and the fact that the Defendant posted comments on the Internet article that can be read by accessing many unspecified persons, etc., the Defendant’s writing on the comments constitutes an expression of abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that may undermine the social assessment of the victim, and the Defendant is sufficiently recognized that the comments on the comments were written by recognizing that the Defendant expressed a warning that may undermine the social assessment of the victim.

It seems that the Defendant merely intended to express the victim’s behavior, and it does not seem to have written the comments on the instant case, which is nothing more than the motive of the crime, and thus, the Defendant committed the crime of insult against the victim.