The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The comments made by the Defendant on mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles did not specify the victim, and expressed a temporary reflect on female friendly articles, which do not violate social rules.

In addition, the defendant did not have the intention to insult the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and erroneous.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted that mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles were identical to the grounds for appeal at the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds of “the grounds for the charge” in the judgment.

Examining the judgment of the court below in comparison with records, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle on the assertion of unfair sentencing, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in a case where there exists a unique area of the first instance court concerning the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the materials submitted in the trial at the trial, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and comprehensively taking account of all the circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records and pleadings in this case, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable and thus, cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

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

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is reasonable.