Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Of five parts of the five copies sent by the Defendant for misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant 1’s letter of the judgment of August 17, 2010, excluding No. 1 of the annexed crime sight table No. 2 through 5 of the judgment of the court below, is consistent with the facts as to the victim’s incompetence and incompetence as stated in the annexed crime sight table No. 2 through 5 of the judgment of the court below, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant sent the above letters to urge the victim to reflect the victim’s reflect, and it cannot be deemed that there was an intention or intent to realize harm and harm to the Defendant. In addition, if the Defendant sent the victim on August 17, 2010, only includes the contents that urged the victim to open the victim’s dog, and does not harm the honor of the victim by spreading specific victim’s incompetence and corruption. Therefore, even if the Defendant’s act of sending the above letter to the victim, it cannot be found that the Defendant’s act of unfair sentencing and the Defendant’s act of unjust sentencing.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant distributed books including the content that the Defendant would impair the honor of the victim over five times from August 17, 2010 to March 25, 2014, and the level of such intimidation is not less than that of the victim. Nevertheless, the Defendant argued that he was trying to induce the opening of the victim rather than his mistake, and that he was merely inducing the opening of the victim, the punishment imposed by the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination.