The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Criminal facts have to be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the selection of evidence and probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court.

(Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that Article 310 of the Criminal Act concerning the denial of illegality cannot be applied to defamation through information and communications networks where the purpose of defamation was recognized as having been the purpose of slandering the Defendant as stated in each of the facts charged in the instant case and that Article 310 of the Criminal Act concerning the

The part of the ground of appeal disputing the lower court’s fact-finding is merely an error of the lower court’s determination on the selection and probative value of evidence, which is the free judgment of the fact-finding court.

In addition, examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the purpose of slandering in the crime of violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation), or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

In this case, the allegation in the grounds of appeal on the purport that imposing a fine on a defendant violates the treatment and equity in the case, etc. for which a complaint was filed by the defendant constitutes an assertion that actually contests the sentencing of the court below.

However, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, the above assertion to the effect that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is legitimate.