A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1)

Despite the fact that the Defendant posted the instant comments on the appearance and qualification conditions of the president of △△△ School for the public interest, not for the purpose of slandering the victim, the Defendant was guilty of the Defendant, by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles on the purpose of slandering, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence (one million won of fine) of the judgment sentenced by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable in light of the defendant's circumstances.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

The Defendant and the defense counsel of the lower court, based on the same argument as the above reasons for appeal, rejected the above argument in detail under the title “2. Slander” among the “determination of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion” in the judgment of the lower court. A thorough comparison of the lower court’s judgment with the records and records, this can be justified. In particular, if the lower court and the trial were to look at the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the Defendant and the defense counsel. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant and the defense counsel’

A. The Defendant’s defense counsel held in the election of the president of the total student group. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant’s defense counsel and the vice president and vice president of the △△ cyber college school department (hereinafter “legal department”) were practically representing the law department as well as the department of law at the time of the instant case, and thus constitutes an official seal. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s purpose of defamation cannot be recognized since the Defendant gave advice for the public interest in mind that a candidate who meets the qualification requirements for election of the president of the total student group would not occur again by Naom. According to the record, as alleged by the defense counsel, the victim registered and resigned as a candidate for the election of the president of the △△△△ cyber college school, as alleged by the defense counsel around October 2015, and the victim was recognized as having been the vice president of the law department and the fact that the victim was the general secretary around December 2016. Moreover, considering that the instant comments were published in the NAV, only the law department and the student was included in the Internet.

B. However, in full view of all the circumstances such as the developments leading up to the writing of this case and the method of expression, and the degree of defamation of the victim, it is deemed that the purpose of the writing of this case is to defame the victim rather than for the public interest. ① Examining the developments leading up to the writing of this case, the Defendant written the instant writing of this case with an answer to the Nonindicted Party’s disclosure of his intent to leave the total student conference room, and thereby making it possible for the Nonindicted Party to give advice to the victim. The case held that the Defendant’s disclosure of the statement of this case to the victim’s general public opinion and the public opinion of this case, including the Defendant, was not discussed as to the non-indicted Party’s writing and its writing as the victim’s public position, and it does not seem that the Defendant’s disclosure of the statement of this case to the victim’s general public opinion or the public opinion of the victim’s general opinion of this case to the extent that the Defendant’s disclosure of the victim’s personal opinion and the method of disclosure of the victim’s personal opinion to the victim’s general opinion.

3. Judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing

In light of the circumstances favorable to the defendant, or considering the expressions, means, and methods of defamation used in the crime of this case, the mental suffering of the victim seems to be reasonable, the victim still has the punishment of the defendant, and the fact that the defendant does not seem to be against himself/herself, without recognizing his/her mistake, is not likely to be against him/her, and that it does not appear to be against him/her.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, the means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s allegation of unfair sentencing is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 430 (1) of the Military Court Act, since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Colonel rank of military judge (Presiding Judge) among the Second Lieutenant rank of the Colonel rank of military judge;

1) In the statement of grounds for appeal, the Defendant’s defense counsel asserted that the instant comments were actually made by the Defendant in the course of preparing the comments using a mobile phone, and that there was no intention of defamation on the third trial date. However, the Defendant withdrawn this assertion on the third trial date. In addition, the Defendant’s defense counsel’s defense counsel’s opinion submitted on the second trial date does not indicate facts, but does not constitute an element of defamation, and the Defendant’s expression of opinion does not constitute an element of defamation, and even if it is recognized as constituting a constituent element of defamation, the Defendant is urged to make ex officio decisions of the full bench by asserting that it does not constitute an act contrary to social rules or an act contrary to Article 310 of the Criminal Act, even if it is recognized as constituting a constituent element of the instant comments. Considering all the circumstances, such as the background, content, and method of expression of the comments, the instant comments constitute a constituent element of defamation,