The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Among the writing published by the defendant of mistake of facts, there was no expression that could impair the social evaluation of the victim’s personal value, and there was no insult by specifying the victim. Therefore, there was no intention of insult.

In addition, the illegality should be avoided as acts that do not violate social rules.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that there was no intention of insult as to the mistake of facts by stating the judgment in detail on the “determination of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion”.

Examining the records compared with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower judgment is justifiable.

In addition, whether the defendant's act is an act that does not contravene the social norms, and the act that does not contravene the social rules stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act that can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it. Thus, if a certain act is deemed to be an active and passive defensive act that can be taken under social ethics or social norms in the present situation because the motive or purpose of the act is just and reasonable, and the protected legal interests and the infringement legal interests are balanced, it shall be deemed to be an act that does not violate the social rules

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Do11204 Decided March 27, 2014). According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s expression of the facts charged against the victim constitutes an affirmative act of expressing an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that may undermine the social assessment of the victim beyond passive defensive act, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion that the insult of this case constitutes a legitimate act is also justifiable.