The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, and ① the victims filed a complaint using the personal information of the Defendant, which was known through the status of the police officer, is unlawful.

② The Defendant’s abusive theory is merely an expression of an unreasonable appraisal in the form of a mixed standard, and it is difficult to view it as an insult.

Even if it falls under insult, the defendant's abusive view is not realized in a state where it is possible to spread to many and unspecified persons, so there is no performance.

However, the judgment of the court below that recognized the Defendant as having committed the offense of insult is unreasonable.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine is difficult solely on the basis of the circumstance alleged by the Defendant, such as the assertion that the instant complaint was unlawful.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

2) The offense of insult regarding the assertion that the offense of insult is not established is a legal interest to protect an external reputation, which means a social evaluation of the value of a person.

Here, the term “competence” refers to the expression of an abstract judgment or satisfic sentiment that may undermine a person’s social evaluation without indicating any fact.

In addition, the offense of insult is established by openly expressing an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that might undermine the external reputation of the victim.

Therefore, it is not necessary that the external reputation of a victim is practically infringed or that there is a risk of actual infringement (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do9674, Oct. 13, 2016). In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant constituted a crime of insult is justifiable.

(1) Details of the defendant's statement and surroundings at that time.