A. The defendant and the victim published the same article as the facts charged in order to inform the members of the "B" whose members are members of the victim of the fact that he/she had tried to settle the dispute between the victim and the defendant in the form of a hearing of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles and that the victim was living for good purposes despite the fact that he/she did not assault the victim, and in order to inform the members of the "B" whose members are members of the victim of the fact that he/she had known that he/she was living for fighting with the intent of good purposes, the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that the victim's name was not written and the defendant's act was for the public interest, and it was not illegal for the defendant's act

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (700,000 won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles, according to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the Defendant’s act is difficult to view that the Defendant’s act was for public interest and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently, and the Defendant’s assertion is without merit, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant, on April 23, 2012, stated “B” the name of the victim and stated “B” as “B,” etc.; and (b) the Defendant’s personal information on the case that occurred due to the accusation; and (c) the Defendant and the victim’s personal information on the Internet bulletin board that only the member of the “B” can be seen as having little relation to the business of the member of the “B” member.

B. We examine the issue of unfair sentencing, and the Defendant’s primary offender.