2017 Highly 411 Defluence

○○ (930124 - 2), graduate students

Seoul Mapo-gu

【Special Metropolitan City, Gyeongnam-gun】

Red Government (prosecutions) and Written (Public Trial)

Attorney Kim Jong-hwan (Korean National Assembly Line)

July 13, 2017

A fine of KRW 300,00 shall be imposed on a defendant.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Facts of crime

On December 14, 2015: around 17, the Defendant made a public insult of the victim’s lecture, which is the author, by entering it into the Internet MITS’s free bulletin board such as Madrid, on the face of the inside of the Internet MITS, and entering it into a marriage-INT, at a remote place.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in court (the purport that the above written statement is true);

1. A written direction of the investigation (the complaint, the warrant of seizure and search, reply, etc.);

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 311 (Selection of Fine)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. The assertion;

A. The term “Korea-China” is a fluorous fluoring her "Korean male at the Internet site", and the term "marbing her pregnancy" is also a fluorous fluoring her by allowing the other party to engage in pregnancy that is not wanting by the other party as a fluor. In addition, the term written by the defendant is only the fluoring of the word written by the defendant, not the mads, but the Mads is merely an example of planting the Madsar. Ultimately, the meaning of the phrase written by the defendant is "a woman who does not want the Mads of Korea", and this does not constitute an insult.

B. The Defendant considered Madern as the character of the web Nit, and the above phrase also did not know who is the victim's strong ○○○○. Therefore, the Defendant did not have any intention to insult the victim. Moreover, even if the expression "Korea-China" constitutes an hive expression, it is not against the victim's individual, but against the entire male of Korea, and it does not constitute insult in that it is very large in the scope of the group.

C. In light of the fact that the injured party is the author of the luitable web titing, and the injured party was controversial by the web titing the female, and that the luitation for the goods connected to the victim’s web titing, the Defendant stated the above writing in order to encourage other members, and that the words used by the Defendant are new, and it is not easy for the general public to make a legal judgment thereon, the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act that does not go against the social norms.

2. Determination:

The offense of insult is established when a person is openly insulting another person. The legal interest of the offense of insult is to protect the external reputation meaning the social evaluation of the person's value. Here, "definite" means expressing an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment which could undermine a person's social evaluation without indicating any fact (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do9674, Oct. 13, 2016). In the case of "Madmon", the term "Madmon" is a pen of the victim, the specific method of expression of the phrases written by the defendant, and the motive and circumstances leading up to the defendant's statement of such phrases, and it is reasonable to deem that the defendant had an intention to insult the victim. In light of the motive and circumstances leading up to the objective evaluation of the victim's social value, it constitutes an intentional insult of the victim.

In addition, "act which does not violate the social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to the act which can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it, and which act is a legitimate act that does not violate the social rules and thus, should be judged individually by considering the legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act, the reasonableness of the means or method of the act, the balance between the third protected interests and infringed interests, the fourth urgency, and the fifth supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act. However, in light of the specific expression methods of the phrases written by the defendant, the defendant's act does not constitute an act that can be acceptable in light of the overall spirit of legal order, or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it.

Therefore, all of the above arguments are not accepted.

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant is able to do so without using the aforementioned insulting speech as alleged above but uses an expression that may undermine the social evaluation of the value of the victim, and the punishment is determined as ordered in consideration of various conditions of sentencing, such as the defendant's age, character, conduct, environment, attitudes, etc.

Judges Kang Jeong-hee