The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles omitted the consumers in confusion, engaged in business activities using the weak points of the law, response was made without permission by inserting an article pointing this out, and the Defendant, as a person who did not insult the victims, posted a notice in order to point out the above business behavior and response method of the victims and to express objections.

B. This part of the grounds for appeal is supplemented by the content of the written application filed by the Defendant on November 12, 2015, which was subsequent to the filing period for the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing.

Since the victim's emergency response experience and confirmation of the fact that many consumers suffered damage due to the victim, this case leads to this case in order to prevent the spread of damage, the court below's punishment (700,000 won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the crime of insult of a mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the assertion of insult, the term “defluence” as referred to in the crime of insult of a mistake of facts and the expression of an abstract judgment or a sacrific sentiment capable of undermining people’s social evaluation. Even in a case where a certain article contains especially insulting expressions, if such expressions can be seen as acts that do not violate social norms in light of the sound social norms of the given age, illegality shall be exceptionally dismissed pursuant to Article 20 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do1433, Jul. 10, 2008; 201Do16505, Oct. 11, 2013). The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that “the Defendant’s act was using somewhat excessive expressions for the purpose of protesting against the victim’s unfaithful attitude or consumers, and thus, it does not contravene social rules.”