The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

All the costs of the original judgment and the trial shall be borne by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is true that the defendant committed the same act as the facts charged in this case. However, the defendant did not have the intent to insult the victim, and even if the defendant's act constitutes the elements of the crime of insult, it should be deemed that the illegality of the defendant's act should be avoided due to the act that does not violate the social norms. However, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the facts charged in this case is erroneous

2. The offense of insult as referred to in the crime of insult refers to the expression of an abstract judgment or a sacrific sentiment that may undermine the people’s social assessment without indicating facts (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3972, Nov. 28, 2003). According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the Defendant discovered the title “D Sungnam tin and strokes strokes” on the Internet site of “bee repository” as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and found the title above as it is, as it is, on his Twitter (a Twitter’s dissemination of letters listed on the Twitter to share with other users). This constitutes a strokeble expression that may undermine the social assessment of the victim D.

It is reasonable to view that the defendant had a criminal intent to insult the defendant in light of the background of the above writing's tweeting on his Twepter.

On the other hand, the act that does not violate the social rules stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to the act which can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it, and what act does not violate the social rules and thus, it is reasonable to consider and determine the illegality separately under specific circumstances.