Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 3.5 million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. Defendant 1) The expression “unfavorable filty”, Defendant 1’s comments posted by the Defendant against the lower court (misunderstanding of the legal doctrine), and “all filty” does not go against the social rules, not likely to undermine a person’s social evaluation by means of a little and indecent and indecent expression that is ordinarily used.

Nevertheless, the first instance court, which pronounced guilty, erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2) The Defendant’s act does not constitute a crime of violating the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., since the content of the message, etc. of this case by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the second instance judgment (misunderstanding of legal principles and misunderstanding of sentencing) did not amount to the degree that the Defendant’s act did not repeatedly lead to fear or apprehension.

Nevertheless, the second instance court, which pronounced guilty, erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

B) The sentence of the lower court against the Defendant (an amount of KRW 3 million) in the second instance court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.

3) The misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the 3rd original judgment (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and error of sentencing) and the Defendant was a simple participant in the instant assembly, and the Defendant was naturally involved in the road by naturally combining the participants in the assembly after the police installed the tea wall, and did not direct, instigate, or induce the other participants, nor did he take part in the act of causing direct traffic interference.

Nevertheless, the third court below, which pronounced guilty, erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misconceptions of facts.

B) The punishment of the lower court against the Defendant (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence against the Defendant by the lower court No. 3 of the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Examination of the reasons for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor ex officio prior to the judgment on the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor, respectively.