A. The Defendant, on the Internet site called "B of mistake of facts, committed the comments to prevent the victim from acting, and did not have the intent to insult the victim, and on the other hand, the victim was identified only as the ID of the victim and did not specify the specific identity of the victim. Therefore, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in matters of mistake of facts.

B. The penalty of the lower judgment on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (200,000 won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the determination of an assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s expression of “bee” itself, which was used in the comments, is an expression of the other party. As long as the Defendant referred to as “bee” the victim, the Defendant was aimed at withdrawing the victim from the website.

Even if there is an intention of insult

Since this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

(2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to whether the victim was specified, the victim was using the “G” as an clinic at the B site, and the notice of the first criminal facts was also posted in the notice of the first criminal facts at the time of the original adjudication. According to the above facts of recognition, the members of the B site could be identified as the victim who uses the “G” as the clinic.

Since it is reasonable to deem that the victim was specified, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Although there are favorable grounds for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s primary offender, the background leading up to the Defendant’s committing the instant crime, the lower court appears to have reduced the amount of fine (300,000 won) under the summary order by reflecting such circumstances, and there is no change of circumstances that may differ from the lower court, and the Defendant’s age, occupation and other records and records of this case.