A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on factual mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine as follows.

1) The “E site” where the Defendant, who written his writing, is an entertainment community of adults, is not a place where the Defendant mainly shares information on commercial sex acts, etc., but among them, the place where the Defendant write his writing is different from the “free bulletin board” where sexual sex acts, etc. are put up.

In addition, the defendant's phone number remaining in this case was lost, and it was not intended to identify the victim from the beginning.

2) The main content of the instant text is that the victim did not know about 20,000 won a breath’s breath’s breath’s breath’s breath’s breath’s breath’s breath.

shall not be effective.

In addition, it is difficult to see that the contents of this case alone are damaged by the social value or evaluation of the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence (6 months of imprisonment and 1 year of suspended sentence) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles, a statement of fact in the crime of defamation or defamation of the relevant legal principles refers to a report or statement on the past or present facts in a time and space, and the content of the statement refers to that which can be proven by evidence, and in distinguishing the facts or authorization of opinion, the ordinary meaning and usage of language, possibility of proof, the context in which the expression in question was used, and the context in which the expression in question was used, shall be determined by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the fact’s social situation, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do2956, Mar. 24, 1998, etc.). The statement of fact is a statement of fact.