A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. In light of the circumstances such as the fact that the Defendant suffered from disease, such as an unfair sentencing disc, and the fact that the economic activity is at risk due to detention, the imprisonment for six months sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant did not assert the grounds for misunderstanding the legal principles, and the judgment below is recognized to have erred by misapprehending the legal principles, and this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. Considering the circumstances in which the Defendant asserts unreasonable sentencing, considering the following: (a) the frequency of the instant crime exceeds 18 times; (b) the quality of the instant crime committed on the Internet by inserting false facts on the ground of a final dispute; (c) the Defendant was punished by a fine; (d) the Defendant was not endeavoring to recover damage up to the trial; and (e) other circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment; (e) motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (e) the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is appropriate and unreasonable.

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.