The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In other words, the expression “influence” is merely an expression “influence” as a brupt, but merely an expression as a brupt, and thus does not constitute an insult to the degree of undermining the social evaluation of the victim.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The offense of insult under Article 311 of the Criminal Act is a crime that legally protects an external reputation, referring to a social evaluation of a person’s value, and the offense of insult refers to the expression of an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment, which may undermine a person’s social evaluation, without stating any fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do229, Sept. 10, 2015). He/she returned to the instant case, and the Defendant is the president of a school, on the bulletin board used by investors to obtain corporate information of the victim.

The phrase "I am human being in the first place" or "I am in the language" was posted, and the victim was accused of committing a sale and purchase of shares using undisclosed inside information of the above company with his wife, and the victim's academic background, etc. was already disclosed through newspaper articles.

Even if the defendant's notice is an expression of abstract judgment or dissatisfic sentiment that could undermine the social evaluation of the victim.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. The Criminal Litigation Act, which takes an unfair trial-oriented principle and direct principle of sentencing, has a unique area for the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance trial, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).