The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant misunderstanding of facts only posted comments on the facts charged with the intent of expressing the victim’s displeasure of the victim’s speech and expressing critical opinions, and there was no intention to insult the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by erroneous determination that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

B. The lower court’s sentence (an amount of KRW 700,000) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the offense of insult of the relevant legal doctrine is established when a person openly insults another person (Article 311 of the Criminal Act); and the protection of an external reputation, which means a social evaluation of a person’s value, is the legal interest to protect the person. Here, the term “abundance” refers to the expression of an abstract judgment or sacratal sentiment that may undermine the social assessment of a person without a statement of fact.

In addition, the offense of insult is established by openly expressing an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that may undermine the external reputation of the victim. Thus, the victim’s external reputation is not practically infringed or specific and really infringed (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do9674, Oct. 13, 2016). 2) Specific judgment based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court. In other words, the Defendant posted comments on comments to the effect that the Defendant stated the victim’s real name in the news entry column and criticizes the victim’s reputation, and that the Defendant posted comments on the Defendant’s specific expressions used in the above text (i.e., “an extreme suspicion and on the surface”).

F) The term “bris”, “bris”, and “bris” are used to indicate the satisfic sentiment of the victim by using indecent terms, thereby undermining the social evaluation of the value of the victim’s personal value.