All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s act does not contravene the social norms in light of the motive and background of Defendant’s posting of the writing, the degree and degree of insulting expression, etc.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case by the prosecutor, the lower court’s sentence (the suspended sentence and suspended sentence: fine of KRW 500,000) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (i) Even in a case where a statement in the judgment of the court below contains, inter alia, a judgment or opinion containing an insulting expression, if such expression can be deemed an act that does not contravene social norms in light of the sound social norms of the time, illegality is exceptionally dismissed pursuant to Article 20 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1433, Jul. 10, 2008). Here, “act that does not contravene social rules” under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act that can be accepted in light of the overall legal order or the social ethics or social norms, as such, the act is construed as an act that can be accepted in light of the motive or purpose of the act, the reasonableness of the means or method, the balance between the protection interest and the legal interests and the infringement interest, the balance between the means or method other than the act, and the supplementary nature of the means or method other than the act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5077 Decided December 26, 2002, and Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4151 Decided April 27, 2006, etc.). Based on the above legal principle, the lower court, based on the following circumstances, which can be recognized by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., the motive and circumstance of the Defendant’s posting of the instant text, may be somewhat taken into account: (a) the Defendant’s posting of the instant text, as described in the facts charged, has been repeatedly used, which could undermine the social assessment of the victim; and (b) the Defendant’s posting of the instant text is compared to other comments.