The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of the offense of insult, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of insult, although annoyed person without personal value expressed the comments comments, which are written in the facts charged by the Defendant’s summary of the grounds for appeal, may be deemed to constitute an abstract judgment or an sacrificous expression that may undermine the external reputation of the other party.

2. The offense of insult under Article 311 of the Criminal Act is an offense that protects an external reputation, which means a social evaluation of a person’s value, and refers to an offense of insult as defined in the offense of insult, namely, expressing an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that may undermine a person’s social assessment without indicating any 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 that it constitutes the elements of the crime of insult, even if it was expressed in a somewhat unusual manner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do229, Sept. 10, 2015). (1) The lower court: (a) 1) the comments comments on the instant facts charged as indicated in the instant facts constituting the offense of insult: (b) whether the comments on the comments “C c

The expression “chilling a year,” in the context, cannot be deemed to have expressed an abstract judgment or a sacrific sentiment that may undermine the social assessment of C, the other party to the comments, rather than an expression towards C, who is the other party to the comments, as well as an expression of such abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment.

The phrase “” also indicates that it is difficult to view that the other party expressed an abstract judgment or a dissatisfic sentiment as well as an abstract judgment against the other party, as it is merely a matter of question about the other party’s depression. (3) Even if the Defendant sought to display an abstract judgment against the other party by questioning the other party, it is difficult to deem that it constitutes an expression that may undermine the other party’s social evaluation.