The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (the penalty amounting to 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case and the Defendant and the Victim B and C came to know in the process of posting each of their political opinions on the audience and official page registered in a smartphone app, a smartphone app, in writing. As such, the Defendant had a favorable appraisal with the victim different from his own opinion.

On January 16, 2015, the Defendant sent the victim’s face pictures using the above C and Kakakaoooooox, which had been dialogueed from the Defendant’s house located at 509 Dong 1203, to the above C and Kakaoox, and there is a need for F-do character problem.

It is also necessary to say that the funeral service was originally known.

High flagpoles Moles Moles

Now, I believe that they should not speak.

I have no right to do.

“A victim was openly insulting the victim by stating that he/she was a false and abnormal dispute, and that he/she was of a character.”

B. The offense of insult under Article 311 of the Criminal Act is an offense in which an external benefit and protection of a person’s external reputation means a social evaluation of a person’s value. The offense of insult as referred to in the offense of insult refers to the expression of an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that may undermine a person’s social evaluation without mentioning any fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do2229, Sept. 10, 2015). Therefore, if a certain expression is not likely to undermine the other party’s social evaluation of the other party’s personal value, even if the expression is not a negative opinion on the other party’s personal value, it cannot be said that such expression would undermine the other party’s social evaluation of the other party’s personal value.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant, the victim and C are social network services.