[1] The meaning of “defluence” as referred to in the crime of insult / In a case where a certain writing contains insulting expressions, which is not contrary to social rules, and where illegality can be avoided as an act that does not go against social rules / Even if such writing includes insulting expressions in the Internet bulletin board, etc. in which opinions are shared with respect to a specific case, where the act of producing such writing is excluded as an act that does not contravene social norms and thus, its illegality is excluded

[2] In a case where the article written by the reporter Gap, who belongs to the Internet newspaper company, was posted in the column of the Internet portal site, and the defendant was indicted on the charge of openly insulting Gap by posting the comments on "Nr. Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Do", the case holding that the act of writing the above comments constitutes an insulting expression, but in full view of the contents, time and location of the above comments, contents and flow of other comments posted before and after the above comments, etc., the act of writing the above comments constitutes a violation of social rules, and thus, the illegality under Article 20 of the Criminal Act is excluded

[1] The term “influence” in the crime of insult refers to the expression of an abstract judgment or a sacrific sentiment that could undermine the people’s social evaluation without revealing facts.

However, even in a case where a certain article contains an insulting expression, if it is merely an insulting expression in part in the process of emphasizing the reasonableness of one’s own decision and the attitude of the victim on the factual basis or related issues on the premise of the objective feasibility, and emphasizing that one’s decision and opinion are reasonable, the illegality may be avoided by Article 20 of the Criminal Act as an act that does not violate social rules. Even if an insulting expression is included in the text written in the space of the Internet bulletin board, etc. in which the opinion is shared with respect to a specific issue, it can be deemed that the content is an expression by emphasizing or combining the other opinions made in the same manner on the basis of the objective feasibility, and if such expression is mainly about the act of the victim and is not excessively malicious, such an act should be deemed unlawful as an act that does not violate social rules, barring any special circumstances.

[2] In a case where the article written by the reporter Gap belonging to the Internet newspaper company related to automobile information was posted in the column of "hot issue" of the Internet portal site, and the defendant was indicted for openly insulting Gap by posting the comments "Net Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don", the case holding that although the article constitutes an insulting expression, the defendant posted the above comments on "Non Don Don" in the column of "Non Don Don Don", which was prepared to enable readers to freely express their opinions, and that the above article is an act of expressing the above article's article's article's contents and expression's opinion that is hard to defend it, and that the above article is an act of expressing the above article's contents and expression's opinion that is different from that of the article's contents before and after the article's expression, and that the above article's contents and expression's opinion are relatively different from that of the article's opinion that is written in light of the above circumstances.

[1] Article 311 of the Criminal Code / [2] Articles 20 and 311 of the Criminal Code, Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3972 Decided November 28, 2003, Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1453 Decided December 23, 2005, Supreme Court Decision 2016Do9674 Decided October 13, 2016 (Gong2016Ha, 1741)

Defendant

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 2017No2108 Decided October 20, 2017

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The facts charged of this case reveal that the article of the victim’s “MPS” (hereinafter “the article of this case”) stating “MPS” (hereinafter “the article of this case”) was published in the column of “the following automobile news” on the Internet portal site “the Internet portal site,” and the Defendant posted a statement stating “Irrrrrrrrrrrt??” (hereinafter “the article of this case”), thereby publicly insulting the victim.

The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, convicted the instant facts charged.

2. However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below as it is. The reasons are as follows.

A. The term “defluence” in the crime of insult refers to the expression of an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that could undermine a person’s social evaluation without mentioning facts (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do9674, Oct. 13, 2016, etc.).

However, even in cases where a certain article contains an insulting expression, if it is merely a use of partially insulting expression in the process of emphasizing the validity of one’s own judgment and opinion, on the premise that such expression is objectively reasonable, the illegality may be avoided by Article 20 of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do3972, Nov. 28, 2003; 2005Do1453, Dec. 23, 2005; 2005Do1453, Dec. 23, 2005). In addition, even if an insulting expression is included in a space of the Internet bulletin board, etc. in which the article shares opinions on a specific case, in view of the continuous and continuous manner with other opinions, such an expression should be deemed unlawful as an expression of the victim’s own opinion or the victim’s opinion on the objective basis of the objective validity of the content thereof, and thus, such an act should be deemed unlawful or unreasonable as an expression of the victim’s own opinion on the issue.

B. The record reveals the following facts.

1) In general, the electric waveing system is referred to as EPS (Electric Posing). Hyundai Motor Group refers to MPPS (Moror Dor Doer Doering). On the other hand, there was a lot of controversy over safety regarding such MPS, and MBC broadcasts MPS suspected defects in the “airpos 2580” portion of MaPS (MaBC).

2) Around that time, the victim, who is a reporter belonging to the Internet newspaper company related to automobile information, prepared the instant article under the title of “MaDPS,” not “to obtain” but “to Korea,” and the said article is going to clarify the advantages of general EPS. In the case where the article is published, the article was published in the column of “the next website No. 100,” the article was in place that read the above article could have an opinion of the readers.

3) On the part of the “NEN Pool comments”, more than 1,00 comments on the instant article were posted regarding the instant article, and the comments on the instant articles were registered before and after the instant comments.

A) Even if the Dogre thickness and all advantages of the Dogre are actually existing, the driver should have bringed and Hand during driving so that the driver would not be able to cause a threat to his life... The driver should d's d't d't in favor of the company or in favor of the company, but not in favor of the driver or consumer.

B) Accordingly, each PES has a relative flocks only. It is called cocks that there is no meaning that what cocks are good and bad. It will be put to put to flocks..... Fora, it is possible to put the PES entering the Allied into the Neass. where it was put into the EPS in the Neass.

C) At present, we check this case on the official block, which is not complete. It is hot that we can receive only a person who visits with knowledge of the cause of the hand-on, not from one to one from one to one from one to another, of which noise generation is acceptable due to the appearance of modern Wal parts. Whether the life as security continues to exceed the point of the company?

d) 2580 The sound from Above 2580

C. We examine the above circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier.

1) Inasmuch as the Defendant’s expression in the instant comments is the composite language of “waste” and “waste,” it is a term that criticizes the behavior of reporters or reporters who prepare promotional articles due to extreme title or content, etc., and thus, constitutes an insulting expression, where the Defendant expressed an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that may undermine the social assessment of the reporters.

2) However, the Defendant’s act of writing the instant comments ought to be deemed as unlawful by Article 20 of the Criminal Act, which does not contravene social norms. The reasons are as follows.

A) readers prepared the comments on the contents of the instant article and the attitude of the press that prepared and published them, and the following websites prepared the comments on the “NEN” so that they can freely express such opinions. Defendant also posted the comments on the instant comments on the “NEN” column.

B) The instant article was posted as a title to defend MPS in a lot of controversy over the safety of MPS, and on the other hand, many parts of the article were revealed the advantages of general PES. Prior to the publication of the instant article, MPC broadcasted the negative contents related to MPS through 'Sistman 2580', and a large number of readers who read the instant article were expected to defend or publicize MPS based on the above broadcasting contents, etc. based on the advantages of general PES, and as such, expressed comments on the title and contents of the instant article, the behavior or attitude of the modern Automobile Group, and the victim who prepared the article. Accordingly, such opinions can be seen as based on objective circumstances to a certain extent.

C) In light of the contents, timing and location of the instant comments, the contents and flow of other comments posted before and after the instant comments, etc., the instant comments may be deemed as emphasizing or compressioning the opinions criticisming the title and content of the instant articles, and the act or attitude of the victim who prepared the comments, based on the content of the broadcasts, etc., from the same point of view as those of other comments posted before and after the instant comments. In addition, the term “rash” is relatively widely used in the text criticisming the news and the reporter’s behavior, and it is difficult to say that the expression of the instant comments is excessively malicious in comparison with the content and content of other comments on the instant news.

3. Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged as seen earlier. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the offense of insult, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The Defendant’s ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Sang-ok (Presiding Justice)