The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal D states that the Defendant had 10 or more people in a bath and made statements from the Defendant that they had the same words as the facts charged, so it may be disseminated to an unspecified or many unspecified persons. In light of the circumstances where the Defendant made the Defendant’s statement to F, etc., the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case, even though the Defendant could acknowledge the fact by pointing out false facts as stated in the facts charged, and thereby, acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the public performance and the possibility of spreading

2. The summary of the instant facts charged, around April 201, the Defendant undermined the victim E’s reputation by publicly pointing out false facts, stating that “E, low, is sensitive to the view of his or her father, and the aging is no longer fluor with e or young fluor, and is not fluoring with dial-a-a-a-law,” while having 10 people listen to D, etc. at the public bath in Yangsan-si Chum.

3. The court below's determination is limited to evidence consistent with the facts charged in this case, such as the victim's police, prosecutor's office, and court of original instance, a written complaint prepared by the victim, a transcript attached to the victim's complaint, D's prosecutor's office and court of original instance, F's prosecutor's office, public prosecutor's office and court of original instance, G's statements, G's police and court of original instance, the defendant's police's statements, and the defendant's police and prosecutor's office's office. The victim's statements and prosecutor's office's office in the police were stated in F's office and the victim's statement were recorded in F's office. The recording is limited to the extent that the defendant made the statement at F's police office that the defendant did not ask the victim for a question as stated in the facts charged, and there is no content related to the facts charged, and the statement at F's court of original instance in F's