A. The Defendant misunderstanding the facts reveals the comments made by the victim, but it is true that the Defendant, along with the comments written by the victim, sent comments on other community sites related to the right to exhibit operation and operation of other community sites, in which the Defendant puts the comments on the comments on the comments on the right to exhibit operation and operation of other community sites. Therefore, the offense of insult against the victim is not established.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the facts charged of this case.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) The court below rejected the Defendant’s above assertion and convicted the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant asserted that this part of the appeal is the same as the grounds for appeal, and that the Defendant stated the contents of the war in two pages of the judgment of the court below, the Defendant’s writing on the victim’s posted, the Defendant’s writing on the part of the victim, and the contents related to the war, and the Defendant appears to have reported the Defendant’s writing on the part of the injured party, and the Defendant did not submit objective materials to support it.

2) The court below's decision is just in light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, and the defendant's assertion is about the mistake of the object, and even according to the above argument, the defendant's criminal intent of insult is not justified and does not interfere with the establishment of a crime against the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do2813, Jan. 24, 1984, etc.). In addition, the court below's decision is just and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts as alleged by the defendant and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

B. A change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing.