The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 1 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

The court below erred in the determination of facts, and found Defendant A guilty of the crime of impairing the reputation of the victim by pointing out facts through the information and communications network for the purpose of slandering the victim F, and found Defendant A guilty of the crime of impairing the reputation of the victim in light of the statement made by the victim F and the statement written diagnosis, etc. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 2020, Feb. 1, 2008> The court below acquitted Defendant A of the injury in consideration of the following: (a) Defendant A’s face on the cell phone of the victim F; and (b) Defendant A was not guilty of the injury in consideration of the statement made by the victim F and the statement made by the medical certificate of injury; and (c) Defendant A was not guilty of the injury in consideration of the victim’s injury on the side of the victim’s drinking. Such judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

The sentence of unfair sentencing by the court below is unfair because it is too uneasible.

Judgment

The court below found the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts, in light of various circumstances known in the video of the City Ttib recorded in the situation at the time, Defendant A suffered injury from the victim's cell phone, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that Defendant A was in violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Defamation) against Defendant B, and on the grounds that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the court below acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged, and on the injury inflicted on the victim, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is sufficient.