2. The lower court found the following facts and circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the victim I received visual repair at “H”, which is a visual repair shop operated by the victim F, and posted the post at the Internet B, ② the victim F attended the Internet community meeting called “O” around May 2016 and paid KRW 30,000 to the victim I for supporting or eating expenses, and the victim F requested the victim I to prepare a post-visual repair, or for providing money in return, seems to have not been true. ③ The Defendant did not provide objective grounds for the posting of this case. In full view of the following facts: (a) the victim F did not confirm or examine the authenticity of the posting of this case; (b) the Defendant’s content and motive of the posting of this case; and (c) the specific contents and method of posting the posting of this case, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant failed to recognize that the content of the posting of this case constitutes an objective falsity.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

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