beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.
The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.
Reasons
1. The appellate court’s judgment dismissing the public prosecution regarding the assault among the facts charged in the instant case, and pronounced a conviction regarding the remaining insult, and only the Defendant appealed against the conviction portion.
Therefore, since the dismissal part of the judgment of the court below against which the prosecutor and the defendant did not appeal became final and conclusive, the judgment of this court is limited to the conviction part (definating) of the judgment below.
2. Summary of reasons for appeal;
A. In misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant asserted with the victim, and whether the victim can do so for a more than 18 years or more.
Although the fact stated to the effect that it is “,” the following facts were stated in the facts charged: “Ping years, a pair of years, and the age was less than three years.”
There is no stipulation “..........”
Even if it is recognized that the Defendant made a statement as stated in the facts charged, such a statement does not constitute an insulting speech that may undermine the social evaluation of the victim’s personal value.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the offense of insult is established when a person openly insults another person. As such, the external reputation, referring to a social evaluation of a person’s value, is the legal interest of protecting the person. Here, the term “comfort” refers to the expression of an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment, which is likely to undermine a person’s social assessment without indicating
In addition, the offense of insult is established by openly expressing an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that may undermine the external reputation of the victim. Thus, the victim’s external reputation does not have to be practically infringed or there is a risk of infringement specifically and practically (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do9674 Decided October 13, 2016).