The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

A. The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine or mistake of facts, argues that there is no fact of openly insulting the victim, or that the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act, because, in mind, other substitute drivers did not suffer monetary damage, etc. and puts the same article as the facts charged on the Internet camera so that other substitute drivers do not suffer such damage.

B. Sentencing 1 Sentencing 200,000,000,000 won, which is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the term “comfort” referred to in the crime of insult of the insult of facts refers to the expression of an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that may undermine people’s social assessment without indicating facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 81Do2280, Nov. 24, 1981; 2006Do4408, Apr. 24, 2008). According to the evidence duly adopted in the first instance trial and duly examined evidence, the Defendant’s comments as stated in the judgment of the first instance fall under “F,” “F,” and in particular, the victim’s remarks e.g., “,” e., “F,” and e., “F.,” and e., “F.,” and “F.,” and the victim’s expression or judgement that the victim’s defamation could be sufficiently recognized as an expression or criticism of the above abstract facts.

2) Even in cases where any writing on whether or not an act of a political party contains a judgment or opinion containing an insulting expression, if such expression can be viewed as an act that does not contravene the social norms in light of the sound social norms in that era, the illegality is denied exceptionally in accordance with Article 20 of the Criminal Act.