Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. In relation to defamation 1), the Defendant did not make the same remarks as indicated in the facts charged, and even if such remarks were made, “the victim D has committed an indecent act against E and stolen the money of the telecomer, thereby drinking F and a meeting.” Even if it was false in family affairs, even if it was false, the Defendant believed it to be true, and thus the Defendant’s intentional act as to the falsity is not recognized. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged was erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) Although there was a fact that the Defendant opened a carbr window and opened a glass in return for the damage of property, the market value of the damaged glass is 10,000 won, and thus, it was erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3) Although there was a fact that the Defendant had reduced the victim D’s timber, there was no fact when the victim’s rear timber was committed, and even if the Defendant’s act did not inflict an injury on the victim, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, by misunderstanding the fact that the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. Furthermore, even if not, the lower court’s sentencing (a fine of KRW 1.5 million is too unreasonable) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the Prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with the purport that “the market price equivalent to KRW 100,000,000” under paragraph (2) of the facts constituting the crime indicated in the judgment of the court below was changed to “the market price equivalent to KRW 10,000,00,000,” and this court permitted this change, and thus, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, the judgment of the court below is the above.