The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. There was no perception of the summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding, violation of law, and unreasonable sentencing).

There is no possibility of radio waves since it will be delivered only to G.

There was no intention of defamation.

The determination of punishment (6 million won) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and violation of law, the Defendant pretended that the victim D was the victim as requested by B without confirming whether the victim D did not actually pay the construction cost to B.

It is possible to repeatedly reproduce, reproduce, and disseminate mobile phone recording files.

There is no error in the judgment of the court below that recognized that the defendant intentionally damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts, or in violation of the Act, which affected the judgment.

B. The lower court rendered a sentence on the assertion of unfair sentencing, taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s leading in committing the instant crime: (b) did not seem to have received any consideration from B [the Busan District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Office 201, 281, 288, and 2019Gohap66 (combined)]; and (c) did not have any history of punishment as favorable factors for sentencing; and (d) did not have any history of punishment; (b) did not

There is no change in sentencing factors in the appellate court.

(A) The victim of the instant crime cannot be deemed as a favorable sentencing factor in G, in which the recording file was transmitted DNA. Although the court below selected a fine and appealed only by the Defendant and did not apply the sentencing guidelines, the court did not consider the sentencing factor and other factors of sentencing as the sentencing guidelines set out in the sentencing guidelines for defamation, considering that the court re-examines the sentencing factor and other factors of sentencing set forth in the sentencing guidelines for defamation crime, the amount of the

3. The appeal by the defendant is without merit.

The dismissal under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is dismissed.