The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant’s distribution of printed articles referring the victim D as a dyke as stated in the facts charged of this case does not constitute an act that does not violate the social rules and thus, it does not constitute an act that does not violate the reasonableness, urgency, and supplement of means. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on “act that does not violate the social rules” under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, which is the grounds for dismissal of illegality, and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The offense of insult as referred to in the relevant legal doctrine is an expression of an abstract judgment or a sacrific sentiment that may undermine a person’s social evaluation without a statement of fact. Even in a case where a certain article contains a judgment or an expression of opinion that contains an insulting expression, if such expression can be deemed an act that does not contravene the social norms in light of the sound social norms of the era, illegality is excluded exceptionally pursuant to Article 20 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1433, Jul. 10, 2008). Even in a case where a certain writing or statement contains an insulting expression, even if such writing or statement contains an insulting expression, it may be deemed unlawful as an act that does not violate the social rules, unless there are any special circumstances.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do9411, Feb. 28, 2008). However, this is an inquiry.