The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles as follows, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

1) The Defendant did not state the real name of the victim in the comments that are not identified as the victim’s insult, and there were another case known as the so-called “T sexual assault case” at the time, and most of the comments referred to as the “T sexual assault case” were made. In light of the above circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant has undermined the social assessment of the victim by specifying and insulting the victim. In light of the above circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the period for filing a complaint has lapsed, and the victim collected the comments related to the instant case and confirmed the ID of the Defendant six months before submitting the written complaint to the investigation agency. As such, the victim collected the comments related to the instant case and confirmed the ID of the Defendant. As such, it shall be deemed that the offender was aware when the victim confirmed the ID of the person who prepared the comments prepared by the Defendant, and the victim’s complaint filed after six months have elapsed since the expiration of the period for filing a complaint is unlawful.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine regarding the assertion that the offense of insult is not constituted an insult because the victim is not specified. Since the offense of insult is established by expressing an abstract judgment or a sacrific sentiment that may undermine social assessment with respect to a specific person or an organization holding character, the victim should be identified (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do15631, Mar. 27, 2014). Even if the Internet comments do not impair a specific person’s reputation or infringe on a specific person’s real name by virtue of the real name of the specific person’s Internet comments, it is discovered that the indication is categorized as a specific person in light of the contents of the expression as a whole.