A. The Defendant, misunderstanding of facts, told that D had been locked with the workplace master, thereby impairing D’s honor.

B. The lower court’s sentence that is unfair in sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

가. 사실 오인 주장에 대한 판단 (1) 이 부분 공소사실의 요지 피고인은 2015. 10. 경 서울 성동구 G에 있는 H 식당에서 직장 동료들인 I, J, K에게 “D 가 부 장님과 같이 있었는데 그냥 밤만 샜겠느냐,

D’s honor was undermined by openly pointing out false facts, such as 100%.

(2) The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant made the above remarks, such as K’s statement, etc.

(3) The following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, the Defendant consistently denied the facts charged while there was no fact that the said horses were sent to J, I, and K, and the Defendant was at the same time.

J also stated that there was no fact that the defendant made such a statement, I also rejected the defendant's request from IDoD to prepare a written statement that the defendant made the above statement on the ground that there was no memory about it, ② The defendant made the above statement that K had the defendant made the above statement, K had a speecher that F would associate with K on the ground that he was the father and son, and had a good appraisal about the defendant, and thereafter F had F had the victim receive a human rights infringement by forcing the defendant to hedging to hedging to hedging, and then I refused to prepare the written statement, and sent a intimidation message to I to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Human Rights Center.