Before the Defendant posted his writing, there was no writing that slanders the victim, and only the victim took part in the case of dental services such as D.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or legal principles.

2. The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the said argument by explaining in the last part of the “a summary of evidence” in the judgment.

In light of the fact that the judgment of the court below is examined closely with the evidence, and the defendant also stated in the police that "the victim's name (the state stated only in the portrait) was removed from the victim's name on the relevant bulletin board, and that the victim searched the victim's name through the search site after reporting that the victim was involved in the previous fraud," the defendant is deemed to have taken a course after confirming that he slandered the victim and posted a photograph. In addition, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles as argued by the defendant.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.