The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) Defendant F is the victim F.

The same shall apply to the text of paragraph.

While recognizing the fact that “the aforementioned speech is true, it does not constitute an expression of an abstract judgment or a sacrific sentiment that could undermine the social assessment of the victim, and there was no criminal intent to insult the victim, and even if the above speech company constitutes the elements of the crime of insult, it is dismissed that it constitutes an act that does not violate the social rules in light of all the circumstances, such as the circumstances in which the defendant made the speech, and thus, constitutes an act that does not violate the social rules.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The offense of insult under Article 311 of the Criminal Act is an offense that protects an external reputation, which means a social evaluation of a person’s value, and refers to an offense of insult as defined in the offense of insult, namely, expressing an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that may undermine a person’s social assessment without indicating any fact.

Therefore, even if a certain expression is not likely to undermine the social evaluation of the other party’s personal value, it cannot be deemed as constituting the element of the offense of insult even if it was expressed in a somewhat unusual manner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2015Do229, Sept. 10, 2015; 2015Do6622, Dec. 24, 2015); and even in cases where a certain letter or phrase contains any judgment or opinion that includes any insulting expression, in particular, it can be deemed as an act that does not contravene the social norms in light of the sound social norms of the era, illegality is denied pursuant to Article 20 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1433, Jul. 10, 2008).