A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine by misapprehending the legal doctrine against the Defendant’s act, such as gathering the Defendant first and twitter’s twitter’s twitter’s twitter’s twitter’s act. This constitutes legitimate self-defense or legitimate act under the Criminal Act.

B. The punishment of the first instance of unfair sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The victim of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine assertion is officially recognized as a lucentist, and there seems to be no personal relationship with the Defendant.

All the comments written in the records of this case do not seem to have first committed an illegal act against the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

Rather, the Defendant criticizes the victim’s personal political opinion or privacy issues, and up to several times, posted a very serious desire as indicated in the instant facts charged, and the purpose of the instant act is justifiable.

It is difficult to see that the means and methods are appropriate.

Therefore, we cannot accept the argument that the defendant's act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act.

B. Although the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is an initial crime without criminal power, and considering the fact that there is no economic situation, the first instance sentence cannot be deemed unfair, taking full account of all of the following circumstances: (a) the motive, content, frequency, period, and the victim’s considerable mental suffering; (b) the Defendant appears to have suffered considerable mental suffering; and (c) there is no change in circumstances that could reduce the first instance sentence after the sentence of the first instance; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, career, home environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., which are the sentencing conditions specified in the instant argument, such as the criminal defendant’s age, character and behavior

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.