The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s speech, which is misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, is merely an expression of the Defendant’s emotional expression in a somewhat unusual manner, and does not constitute an insulting expression that may undermine the victim’s personal value and social evaluation. In light of the circumstances in which the Defendant made the above speech, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case even though its degree does not deviate from the social norms. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the amount of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The offense of insult under Article 311 of the Criminal Act, which means a social evaluation of a person’s value, refers to an offense of insult under Article 311 of the Criminal Act, which is a legal interest to protect an external reputation, and refers to the expression of an abstract judgment or satisfic sentiment, which is likely to undermine a person’s social evaluation, without mentioning a 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 an element of the crime of insult even if it was expressed in a somewhat unusual manner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2015Do2229, 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 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).