All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) As to the Defendant’s 2015 High Order 1708 High Order, the Defendant is different from the facts on which each testimony of D, E, F, and G is experienced and memoryed by the Defendant.

Since it was believed to believe that it was in fact exaggerated or processed based on the fact of experience, the defendant has no intention to make a false accusation.

(2) As to the case of defamation No. 2015 and 756, the Defendant did not speak as stated in the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the lower judgment, and the Defendant told him as such.

Even if this is not false, it is not false, and since security guards I are allowed to access the apartment of the defendant, and they are asked to pay attention to this, they are generated in the process of responding to I's questions at the request of the defendant for access, and therefore there is no intention of defamation or public performance is not recognized.

(3) Nevertheless, the lower court found all of the charges of this case guilty, which erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below on the defendant (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment, fine of two million won, observation of protection, and order to attend a course for forty hours) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the Defendant’s factual mistake or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, (1) based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant’s allegation in this part is without merit, since the Defendant’s submission of a false complaint as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the lower judgment and sufficient evidence can be recognized for the purpose of having D, E, F, and G receive criminal punishment.

(2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court as to whether the assertion regarding defamation cases No. 2015 and No. 756 was based on the intentionally false facts.