명예훼손등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant did not commit the second re-crimes Nos. 1, 6, and 7 among the second re-crimes listed in the attached Table Nos. 1, 6, and 7 as indicated in the judgment, and the second re-crimes listed in the attached Table No. 2 as indicated in the judgment did not wholly commit the crime.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The following circumstances revealed by evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below and the court below's decision as to the assertion of facts. In other words, the defendant sent mail to the same method and contents as the one in the one in the one in the crime list 1 in the prosecutor's office and the court below's judgment, and the fact that the defendant sent mail to the same contents as the one in the second one in the crime list 1 in the judgment. The defendant cannot find any reasonable circumstances to suspect credibility of a confession as above in the prosecutor's office investigation and court's judgment, and the witness T of the court below assessed that the part in the second or fourth period in the attached list 2 in the crime list 1 through 4 in the judgment of the court below is the same as the name of the defendant, and there is no error of finding that the defendant again submitted by the prosecutor in the attached list 1, 6, and 7 in the attached list 2 in the judgment of the court below and the facts similar to the contents and expressions of the mail in the attached list 2 in the judgment below.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of factual mistake is rejected.
B. The fact that the crime of this case and the circumstances of the crime of this case were defective, and the defendant did not fully endeavor to recover the damage of the above victims until the trial of the court is held. However, the defendant is not guilty.