The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the insult is as follows: (a) around 22:23 November 2015, the Defendant publicly insultingd the victim by putting about five minutes of the instant charges, among many people, including the victim F, who was asked about the occurrence of the instant case from the side customer and the victim F, who was dispatched after receiving a report of 112 on November 9, 2015, during the front State Police Station E zone, from the front State Police Station E zone, and was dispatched to the Defendant, such as the packing horse business owner, etc.

2. As to this, the lower court reversed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of this part of the charges on the ground that it cannot be deemed that there was a risk of undermining the social assessment of the personal value of the victim, on the ground that the other party, packing horse owner, and the police officer of the same fee, who had expressed the Defendant’s desire at the time, could clearly be aware of the situation before and after the time, and that he did not act to hear the desire of the victim. Therefore, the lower court reversed the first instance judgment and acquitted the Defendant.

3. However, we cannot agree with the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

(1) The offense of insult under Article 311 of the Criminal Act is established when a person openly insults another person. The legal interest protected by the law is the external reputation, meaning a social evaluation of a person’s value. Here, insult refers to the expression of an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment, which is likely to undermine a person’s social assessment, without indicating any fact.

In addition, the offense of insult is established by openly expressing an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that may undermine the external reputation of the victim, and therefore the external reputation of the victim is not practically infringed or the risk of infringement is not likely to occur in a concrete real situation.

Supreme Court Decision 201No. 13, 2016