The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is true that the defendant posted comments on the Internet bulletin board, such as the facts charged in the instant case, but the defendant did not point out a specific person in the above comments, and it did not intend to insult the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the defendant by erroneous understanding of facts.

2. Determination

A. First of all, the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, ① the posting of the text of this case, stating the following circumstances, ① the company interfered with C’s business by filing an application for trademark registration of “F,” which is morally criticized and legally subject to criminal punishment.” The posting of the text, stating that the victim of this case applied for trademark registration of “F,” ② The posting of the text, stating that “human being justified” in the posting of this case can be deemed as referring to the victim in light of the above circumstances and the contents of the posting of the text, and ③ the dispute related to the trademark was continued between the operator of “C” and the victim of the Internet camera where the posting of this case and the comments of this case were posted, and the defendant could sufficiently be seen as having known that the victim of this case’s posting of this case or the victim’s posting of this case, including slandering or slandering each other in the Internet camera, etc. operated by the victim.

B. In addition, in the crime of insult, the term “influence” refers to the expression of an abstract judgment or a sacrific sentiment that could undermine the people’s social assessment without mentioning the facts. The comments of this case, “influence of means and methods”, are inconsistent with the comments of this case.