The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

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

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) The Defendant did not show the CCTV video of this case to H and K.

(2) The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles, displayed CCTV video images to H and K.

Even if the video is shown to one person, performance is not recognized in light of the content of the video, the relationship between H, K and the victim F.

(3) The sentencing of the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 300,00) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence, such as the prosecutor F’s statement of the victim F, the statement prepared by L by investigative agency, H and K’s statement, etc., although the court below found the Defendant guilty of defamation on February 27, 2013 among the facts charged in the instant case, it erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the Prosecutor applied for amendments to the Bill of Indictment with the effect that the date and time of the crime related to H “H” was changed from “ around June 18, 2013” to “ around June 18, 2013,” and this Court permitted the amendment and changed the subject of the judgment.

In addition, the crime of defamation related to H and the other crime of defamation related to K are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one punishment should be imposed on the whole. Accordingly, the guilty part of the judgment below cannot be maintained.

However, the guilty part of the judgment of the court below is the subject of the judgment of the court, since the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is the subject of the judgment of the court.

3. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and H’s testimony by the witness of the trial court, the Defendant’s testimony to H around June 2013, and April 1, 2014.