The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) recognizes that the Defendant posted comments on the comments, such as the entries in the facts charged of this case. However, due to the characteristics of the Internet car page, other personal information than the victim’s clinic is not disclosed, and thus, the victim was specified.

It is not possible to do so, and the defendant did not have an intention to insult, and there is no performance.

2. The crime of defamation and insult is not different in terms of the so-called external reputation, which is a social evaluation of a person’s value. The person who is the subject of reputation does not necessarily require a person’s name to be explicitly indicated even if it is a specific person. Thus, if it is possible to find out which person is identified by considering the contents of the expression as a whole, it constitutes an offense of defamation against a specific person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da50213, May 10, 200). Since the method of defamation or insult is possible, it is always possible to write off comments on the Internet, and even if it does not go through the real name or real name of a specific person, if it is possible to find out that the expression is categorized as a specific person in light of the surrounding circumstances and the contents of the expression, it is difficult to use the Internet news as a whole, such as defamation or insult under the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da50213, May 10, 200).