The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows: (a) around 20:22 on October 28, 2015, the Defendant publicly insultingd the victim by stating the content of “51mari-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-

2. The fact that the defendant posted a writing on a Blog as recorded in the facts charged is recognized. The insult referred to in the offense of insult does not indicate a fact but expresses an abstract judgment or a sacrific sentiment that may undermine the people's social evaluation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1453, Dec. 23, 2005); and the expression of the expression "Mal" itself or the victim, etc. in the form of "Mal" constitutes an insult as referred to in the offense of insult, there is no doubt for doubt.

However, even in a case where a certain article contains especially insulting expressions, if such expressions can be seen as acts that do not violate the social norms in light of the sound social norms of the times, illegality is exceptionally dismissed under Article 20 of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1433, Jul. 10, 2008). In other words, the following facts or circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and investigated by the court, which can be recognized by this court, are the following facts or circumstances, namely, the Defendant posted the instant notice in order to criticize the applicants of nationalization in the course of criticism and debate as to the nationalization of historical textbooks, and the victim participated in the nationalization support declaration under the above circumstances.