1. The Defendants: (a) Defendant B, H, and J against each of the said amounts of KRW 200,000 and each of the said amounts to the Plaintiff; (b) Defendant C, as from April 18, 2014, respectively.

1.Article 2-e of the grounds for the attachment of recognized facts;

The remainder except paragraph shall be the same.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 10, 12 through 20 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendants’ summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion infringed the Plaintiff’s reputation and personality rights by preparing the comments on the insulting expressions against the Plaintiff. As such, Defendant E is obligated to pay as consolation money for the Plaintiff’s emotional distress damages caused by such tort the amount of KRW 4,00,000, the remainder of the Defendants are KRW 3,000,000, and damages for delay against each of the said money.

3. Determination

A. In setting the limitation between the freedom of one expression and the protection of reputation in the occurrence of liability for damages, the standard of review should be differentiated depending on whether the victim is a public figure or a private figure, and whether the expression concerns public interests or concerns purely private matters. In the case of expression on matters of public and social significance, the restriction on the freedom of expression should be mitigated.

However, even if the filing of a matter of public concern should be widely permitted, the method of expression should be chosen on the basis of respecting the character of the other party, and even if there is any matter subject to criticism, it is not permissible to insult by an ambiguous expression.

On the other hand, it cannot be deemed unlawful solely on the ground that the expressive person expressed a critical opinion against another person. However, the form and content of the expressive act constitutes an insulting and definite personal attack.