The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles 1) The Defendant did not have the same words as the facts charged.

2) On June 12, 2017, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s defamation against the Victim L constitutes a statement of fact, not a false fact, on the grounds of the Defendant’s appeal on June 12, 2017. However, in the lower court, the Prosecutor applied for the amendment of indictment to the effect that the Defendant’s speech with respect to L constitutes a statement of fact, not a false fact, but a statement of fact. However, at the lower court, the Prosecutor applied for the amendment of indictment to the effect that “the victim’s reputation was damaged by making a false or

Although the Defendant made a statement as stated in the facts charged, the Defendant stated a specific fact that could undermine the victim’s social evaluation, on the ground that he merely delivered talks from the damaged parties with regard to G (hereinafter collectively referred to as “G”), and M, i.e., before and after the opening of the opening of the name;

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles 1) The lower court’s assertion of defamation against victim D was duly admitted and investigated as follows: (i) on January 28, 2015, G made the statement as stated in the facts charged by the Defendant at the time of dialogue with the victim and investigation into the police on January 28, 2015.

The defendant made a statement (165,236 pages) and J also made the above remarks on January 16, 2015 by the police.

The statement (247 pages of investigation record), ② G and J have partially reversed the previous statement to the effect that it was not clear that the defendant made the statement as stated in the facts charged, but it was recognized as to the fact that the victim had talked with the defendant at the time of conversation with the defendant (156, 163 pages of trial record), and it is with the court below.