All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles ① Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Intimidation, etc.) (Crime of Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) (Crime of Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes). Unlike the fact that the lower court recognized that “the Defendant submitted a warning to the police by reporting the facts under paragraph (1) of the crime as indicated in the judgment by the victim to the crime, and received a warning,” the Defendant merely did not have the purpose of retaliation against the Defendant on January 18,

② In relation to the violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (Defamation), the Defendant did not participate in R’s crime, and even if so, did not indicate false facts.

③ In relation to the violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (Defamation), the Defendant did not disclose the real name of the victim, and the protogram was also released from the victim’s face. Therefore, the identity of the victim was not specified.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the relevant legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. As to the violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Information and Communications Network Infringement, etc.) regarding B accounts among the facts charged in the instant case of mistake of facts, the victim’s B account (AB) was certified by the victim’s e-mail, but the lower court, on the premise that the victim was certified by the Defendant’s e-mail, on the premise that the victim was certified by the Defendant, and on the ground that the Defendant