The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Of the facts charged against the defendant within the scope of the judgment of this court, all of the facts except the facts in this court's judgment were acquitted on the grounds of the judgment below, and the prosecutor was exempted from the object of public defense among the parties because the prosecutor did not file an appeal. Accordingly, the conclusion of the judgment below's acquittal is followed.

Therefore, the scope of the court's judgment is limited to the conviction of the defendant.

2. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the expression in the facts charged of this case contains a somewhat displeasure of the victim, but there is no content to regard it as a hhetorical expression. Considering the process of preparing a sign language containing such expressions, the overall purport of the text, and the importance of the expression in the entire text, etc., it cannot be deemed that the victim expressed an abstract judgment or a satisfic sentiment that may undermine the social assessment of the victim. Thus, it does not constitute an element of the crime of insult. 2) Even if the expression constitutes an element of the crime of insult, the Defendant: (a) prepared and posted the instant sign to criticize the victim’s act of excessively deleting a large number of comments solely on the ground that he expressed his negative opinions against him from the perspective of “a suppression of criticism and freedom of expression”; and (b) partially insulting expressions were used during the process of emphasizing his reasonable opinion.

Therefore, this constitutes a "act that does not violate social rules," and thus, illegality is excluded as it constitutes a justifiable act.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (70,000 won of fine) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. In the determination of the allegation that the crime of insult 1 is not a constituent element of the crime of insult 1, the insult referred to in the judgment of the lower court does not indicate the facts.