The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the legal principles of the defendant and improper sentencing)

A. Legal doctrine-misunderstanding of the Defendant’s expressive act is an act that does not go against the social norms, and the illegality is eliminated, and the expression “the change of a sexual slope” at issue is difficult to be deemed a typical insult, unlike the general abusive language.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

B. In light of the fact that the sentencing unfair Defendant’s expressive act consists of criticism against the victim who is a pastor who asserts false facts, the punishment imposed by the court below (one million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle of the defendant

A. Attached 1 to the facts charged of this case is as follows.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of insult on the ground that the expression “one Neman’s truth-finding,” “A, a man, a man, a man, a man, a man, has a meaning that would undermine the social assessment of the victim who is a professor,” and that the expression and content of a notice to the victim do not constitute an act that does not violate the social norms. In full view of the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, the content and purpose of the notice, and the degree of insulting expression expressed in the notice, etc., the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the crime of insult.

(c)

1) The offense of insult under Article 311 of the Criminal Act is an offense in which a person’s external reputation is protected, which means a social evaluation of the value of a person. The offense of insult under Article 311 of the Criminal Act refers to an offense of insulting a person’s external reputation, without stating any fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Do739, May 12, 1987; 87Do739, Nov. 28, 2003; 2003Do3972, Nov. 28, 2003; 2015Do229, Sept. 10, 2015). However, any article is insulting.