The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the legal principles) is an influence expression that may somewhat displeasure the victim in light of the relationship between the defendant and the victim, the details and frequency of posting, the context before and after posting, and the overall meaning of the attached crime list Nos. 1, 2, and 6 as indicated in the judgment of the court below, which was posted by the defendant, and cannot be viewed as an insulting speech that may objectively undermine the social evaluation of the victim's personality value.

2. Determination

A. The offense of insult is established when a person is openly insulting (Article 311 of the Criminal Act). It is a legal interest that protects an external reputation, referring to a social evaluation of a person’s value. Here, insult refers to the expression of an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment, which is likely to undermine a person’s social evaluation, without indicating any fact.

In addition, since the crime of insult is established by openly expressing an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that may undermine the external reputation of the victim, the external reputation of the victim does not require actual infringement or risk of actual infringement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2016Do9674, Oct. 13, 2016; 2016Do15264, Apr. 13, 2017). (b) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant puts comments such as the victim’s mutual comments Nos. 1, 2, and 6 of the attached crime list among the written comments made with the victim, and it is recognized that the contents of the statement include “the victim’s head’s voice is not sufficient to be written.”

However, in full view of the background leading up to the Defendant’s posting of comments as above, the overall purport and context of the comments, and specific methods of expression, the Defendant comments against the victim on the comments.