The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

In light of the fact that the expression in the facts charged (guilty or misunderstanding of legal principles) as indicated in the summary of the grounds for appeal (hereinafter referred to as the “information in this case”) did not take a large portion of the Defendant’s publication written by the Defendant, the victim insulted the Defendant by posting on the Internet, and the Defendant pointed out the issue of the victim’s act, and the Defendant prepared the instant publication as an example, and the developments leading up to the outside statement, place of statement, circumstances after speaking, etc., the instant posting is not written by specifying the victim, but is not written by specifying the victim, and even though there was no intention to insult the victim at the time of this case, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding

The defendant only used some inappropriate expressions while expressing his/her opinion on the front notice of the victim against cyber terrorism that the victim committed against the defendant.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

The court below rejected the above assertion by the defendant on the grounds that the victim's specificness and the intention of insult was the same as the grounds for appeal of this case. The court below rejected the above assertion by stating the defendant's assertion under the title "a judgment on the defendant and defense counsel's assertion" in

The circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., the following circumstances: ① the apartment name, Dong, floor, and lake mentioned in the instant bulletin, and the subject of the Defendant’s comments, including the Defendant’s comments, were identified as the victim, and ② the posting of this case’s comments included therein.