All appeals filed by B and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Defendant B (i) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are merely that Defendant A gave advice during the process of purchasing the school uniform with a prior member and asking the method of utilization thereof. Defendant A did not have a functional control over the instant crime, and thus, it does not constitute a co-principal.

In addition, the victims cannot be identified with the students who died at the time of the Sewol ferry incident and the members of the same class. In light of the contents of the photograph and writing of this case and the details of the posting, etc., the posting cannot be deemed to insult the victims as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and there was no intention to insult Defendant B.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant B guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below of unreasonable sentencing (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Under the misapprehension of the legal principle, the notice of this case constitutes not only the victims of the Sewol ferry case and the members of the same household, but also expressions that could undermine the social evaluation of the students and their bereaved family members.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (for each defendant, four months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Defendant B and his defense counsel asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment of the court below, and the court below rejected this part of the allegation in detail, on the ground that the above Defendant B and the defense counsel stated in the judgment of the court below that “the judgment on the assertion of the Defendant B and the defense counsel” constituted a mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles.

The court below held.