The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles reveals the problems of the retweeting act without a purpose of slandering the victim or a specific victim, and this was self-defense to prevent the infringement of the defendant's rights due to retweeting.

B. Of the sentencing, the sentence of the lower court (one million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant also asserted the same as the purport of appeal, and the lower court explained the reasoning of the judgment and rejected the Defendant’s assertion.

If the reasoning and records of the judgment of the court below are compared to those of the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

B. Determination on the argument in sentencing is examined: ① Defendant was committed on April 2, 2014; ② Defendant was committed each of the crimes in this case on account of his personal exposure and victim D’s retweeting; ② Defendant D’s civil litigation case (victim D) between Defendant and victim (victim) paid 1 million won to Plaintiff (Defendant) and did not tweet his comments on the Internet in the future; and the Plaintiff waived the remainder of the right to claim damages against the Defendant on April 2, 2014. (However, it appears that settlement on the criminal case under the conciliation clause is not inserted; ③ Defendant was deposited as the other party in this case on October 24, 2014; ④ Defendant deposited 500,000 won to Defendant as the other party in this case; ④ Defendant’s domestic character and behavior were examined; and ④ Defendant’s remaining right to claim damages against the Defendant on April 2, 2014.

Therefore, we accept the defendant's argument during the sentencing.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is justified.