The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant only made an ordinary statement to the victim as a senior soldier, and the Defendant’s act does not go against social norms.

The punishment of the lower court (fine 600,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination of which act does not violate the social norms and the illegality of an act should be determined on an individual basis by taking into account the following specific circumstances: (i) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (ii) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (iii) balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests; (iv) urgency; and (v) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8074, Apr. 27, 2006). To recognize such a justifiable act, the motive and purpose of the act is justifiable to make a intimidation or insult against the victim solely on the grounds that the Defendant was a deceased soldier and the victim was unable to properly know his or her common mind while being the victim, and thus, he or she would kill the victim.

The defendant's act cannot be viewed as a justifiable act that does not violate the social norms, since the defendant's act cannot be seen as a justifiable act because it does not seem to have a balance between the defendant's interest and the victim's interest. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

Furthermore, even though the defendant was the first offender, if the defendant does not appear to have asserted that he was justifiable to commit the crime of this case, the victim wants to be punished, the young young people who joined the military are forced to receive unfair treatment from superior officers in order to fulfill the State's service to the State or the duty of the people, and such behavior should be accepted as natural, this would lead to military fraud and will be a fatal point in our military in the future.