The guilty part shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

except that from the date of this judgment.

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (part of guilty part): ① Special assault part: The Defendant, while driving a vehicle, did not receive the victim F by driving the vehicle, and even if so, received the victim F.

Even if it is difficult to regard it as violence, and it is difficult to recognize it as intention.

(2) Offenses against the Act on Promotion of Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. with respect to Victims F: The article posted by the Defendant was true and has no purpose of slandering.

2) Improper sentencing: The punishment of the lower judgment (two years of suspended sentence in October) is too heavy.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles: The Defendant’s remarks are objectively false, and the Defendant was also aware of them.

Even if the defendant believed it as true, the defendant believed it as true.

Even if there is no reasonable ground to believe so, illegality is not dismissed.

2) Improper sentencing: The sentence of the lower judgment is too minor.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court did not accept all of the arguments on the following grounds: (a) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine; and (b) misunderstanding of the legal doctrine; and

Inasmuch as the judgment of the court below is examined closely by comparison with the records, the argument of the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

B. Although the Defendant was sentenced one year to a suspended sentence of six months due to a crime of defamation against the Victim J (the part which is found guilty in the 959 order of 2016 order) and a crime of violation of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, etc. (Defamation), the above Defendant again committed the same crime against the said victim, and the victim F (the victim in the 2016 order of 522, 1783) as the vehicle was charged with the same crime. However, there is a reason to impose unfavorable punishment, such as that the Defendant’s confession of the crime of the part which was found guilty in the 2016 order of 959 order of 2016 order of 2016 order of 2059 order of 200