The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the point of defamation of false facts using an information and communications network for misconception of facts, some exaggerated expressions exist, but the victim has sexual intercourse with S (e.g., E) and F. Therefore, the content of the Defendant’s comments posted was not false, but did not have any awareness that they were false. Therefore, there was no intent to commit defamation of false facts.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in mistake of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the prosecutor tried to examine the previous facts charged as to the violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Defamation) due to the statement of false facts among the facts charged in the instant case, and applied for the amendment of a bill of amendment to the indictment, which added the facts charged as to the violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Defamation) due to the statement of facts as follows. Since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, there are such reasons for ex officio reversal.

Even if the above argument of mistake of facts against the primary facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, it will be examined.

B. The summary of this part of the facts charged and the summary of this part of the judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts are as follows: (a) the defendant did not respond to the defendant's request for marriage; and (b) the victim did not have sexual intercourse with E several times or have sexual intercourse with F; and (c) notwithstanding the fact that the victim had sexual intercourse with E, the defendant did not have sexual intercourse with E, the defendant is identical with or similar