The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On December 5, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 11:21 on December 5, 2016, with respect to the article that “B” by accessing the Internet portal site to the Internet portal site using smartphones from the subway station near the Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul; and (b) as to whether the article “B” has been opened for the C chickens and has been opened for the usmthm.

“In describing the comments,” the victim C(42) was openly insulting by allowing many and unspecified persons to peruse the comments.

2. The offense of insult under Article 311 of the Criminal Act is an offense that protects an external reputation, which means a social evaluation of a person’s value, and refers to an offense of insult as defined in the offense of insult, namely, expressing an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that may undermine a person’s social assessment without indicating any fact.

Therefore, even if a certain expression is not likely to undermine the social evaluation of the other party’s personal value, it cannot be deemed as constituting the element of the offense of insult (see Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do8917, Dec. 11, 2008; 2015Do2229, Sept. 10, 2015, etc.). Even in a case where the expression contains judgment or an expression of opinion that includes an insulting expression, if such expression can be deemed as an act that does not violate the social norms in light of the sound social norms in the said period, illegality is exceptionally dismissed pursuant to Article 20 of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decisions 203Do3972, Nov. 28, 2003; 2008Do1433, Jul. 10, 2008).

However, the following circumstances recognized by the evidence, i.e., the expression “competence”, which is not an expression towards the victim C, and thus, the victim C’s social evaluation may be lowered.