A. Defendant 1) at the time of the occurrence of the instant case, in light of the following: (a) at the time of the occurrence of the instant case, there was a misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles; (b) the Defendant and the Defendant had prepared a confirmation document stating that “the Nonparty and three other persons were replaced by international fraud; and (c) there was no omission that the Defendant made and asked H to make the said confirmation document; (d) the Defendant stated the Defendant’s name “B” and “the Defendant was the Defendant’s name winner”; and (e) the Defendant was unaware of who was G, and was unaware of the fact that the Defendant tolded “international fraud” to the Defendant; and (e) the Defendant did not know that the content of the written complaint prepared by the Defendant was not a false fact, but a false fact was reported to the Defendant.

B) The phrase “international fraud change” itself is merely an abstract criticism, and cannot be seen as an expression that is likely to infringe on a specific person’s social value or evaluation, and therefore cannot be established as a crime of defamation. Therefore, the crime of defamation cannot be established. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 160 hours of social service) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too unfilled and unfair.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the following facts are revealed.

1 The defendant "1. B" against the defendant;

2.Presumption as the wife B;

3. The presumption is specified as “B’s birth presumption”, and when the Defendant and I want to attach a written notification informing of violations, etc. to the 9th floor of the Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Building, which was used as adult call architecture on January 23, 2015, at the entrance of the entrance, the said Defendant and the said employees damaged the Defendant’s reputation, such as referring the Defendant to “international fraud change.”

The term "" means the complaint No. 1 on February 25, 2015 (Evidence List No. 1).