The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the article of the article of “E”, the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, “Isle F of the regulative Department F, who would be paid off the article of “E”, i.e., e., the Plaintiff’s gallebbs that he suffered from the lebal.

ㅎㅎㅎ ”라고 댓 글을 작성한 것은 사실이나, 피고인의 이러한 행위는 공인의 부적절한 처신에 대하여 비판을 한 것으로 피해자에 대한 모욕이라고 볼 수 없고, 오히려 사회 상규에 위배되지 않는 정당행위에 해당함에도 불구하고, 이 사건 공소사실을 유죄로 인정한 원심판결에는 관련 법리를 오해한 위법이 있다.

B. Even if the Defendant was found guilty, the lower court’s sentencing (the suspended sentence of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the crime of insult of a misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the insult as referred to in the crime of insult of a person’s assertion does not indicate a fact and expresses an abstract judgment or a sacrific sentiment that could undermine the people’s social evaluation (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2025, Aug. 21, 2008). Even in a case where a certain article contains such insulting expressions, considering the motive, circumstance, and background behind posting the article, the overall purport of the article, specific method of expression, detailed logical objective and objective validity, the proportion of the presumed facts to the whole article, and its overall relation with its overall contents, under the premise that the article is objectively reasonable, if it is merely the expression partially insulting in the process of emphasizing one’s own judgment and opinion, it shall be deemed unlawful as an act that does not violate Article 20 of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 200, Mar. 21, 2008).