The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Regarding the misunderstanding of facts and defamation of legal principles as to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the Defendant “the victim made a disguised divorce at any time.”

“Written opinion,” and “the disguised divorce was made.”

“The fact did not constitute a false fact by concluding it.”

Nevertheless, the defendant stated false facts.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

The sentence of the lower court against the illegal defendant in sentencing (the amount of three million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the following circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, namely, ① the victim heard from E that the victim would have caused the victim to feel a false and disguised confusion, and then filed a complaint by defamation of false facts, on 10th page of the record of evidence, and ② the witness E of the party, “the victim would have caused a disguised confusion,” and “the victim would have made a disguised confusion.”

Not "," and disguised divorce was made.

“......”

The three pages of the record of the examination of the witness in the trial E in the case where it was clearly stated, and the three pages of the record of the examination of the witness in the court of first instance in the case of the absence of the court of original instance that the injured person would lead to disguised confusion and fraud;

In the trial record, the defendant stated 83 pages of the trial record, and the telephone conversation with the police that "the defendant is a disguised divorce" against the victim.

In full view of the fact that the 37th party’s statement on the record of evidence appears to be consistent and credibility in the main part, while considering the fact that the defendant’s assertion alone lacks to reject the credibility of the above statement, etc., it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant publicly alleged false facts with the content that the injured party shared the same as the stated in the instant facts charged, such as the fact that the injured party shared the same.