The remainder of the judgment of not guilty shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

A. (1) With respect to the part of misunderstanding of facts (A) 2012 High Court Decision 2806, the Defendant did not have expressed the victim H any desire as stated in the judgment of the court below.

(B) With respect to the part 2012 Go-Ma830, the content and expression that the victim E language Private Teaching Institutes (hereinafter “the instant fish Private Teaching Institutes”) will reduce the amount of the TPP’s lecture and have the ability to reduce the amount of the TPP’s lecture, cannot be deemed as defamation, and it is difficult to view it as defamation, on the sole basis of the content and expression that the said E language Private Teaching Institutes (hereinafter “the instant fish Private Teaching Institutes”) would have damaged the social reputation of the said fish Private Teaching Institutes. At the time of posting the notice of the 2, 4, 6, and 8 list of crimes, there was no false perception on the Defendant, and the Defendant did not have any intent to defame the students of the instant fish Private Teaching Institutes on the premise that the Defendant would inform the students of the accurate reality of the instant fish Private Teaching Institutes. As such, there was no purpose of slandering the public interest.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won by fine) is too unreasonable.

B. The comments posted by the Prosecutor (1) No. 1, 3, and 5 on the list of crimes referred to in 2012 high-level 830 show that there is a conflict between the instructors and the president of the language center of this case and the president of the language center of this case, or the president of the language center stated that there is no money between the president and the instructor as a matter of money before the students. The contents of the comments are in conflict with the matter of money, and the instructors have only a private teaching institute, and the contents of the notices are false because the instructors have only the private teaching institute, but the instructors have only the private teaching institute, and there is a conflict with the money. On May 201, 201, each of the above notices posted by the Defendant, even though the two instructors of the language center of this case had moved to the private teaching institute of this case while the instructors of the language center of this case had moved to the Defendant’s private teaching institute.

(2) The notice No. 7 of the crime sight table No. 7 is the instant language research institute.