The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the legal principles or misunderstanding of the facts, 1) The Defendant suffered defamation by publicly alleging each false fact) due to the assault committed by the victim B on January 25, 1989.

In addition, since the defendant was habitually assaulted by the victim B, or was sexually sexual intercourse or harshly abused by the victim B, it is not true that the defendant posted the same article as the list of each crime in the annexed sheet.

B) As to the violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation) in the 2014 High Order 1183 Case as indicated in the lower judgment, the victim B posted a letter that slanders the Defendant through an employee CL, and the victim B claimed a summary order on August 28, 2014 due to the crime between September 26, 2013 and October 20, 2013;

In order to respond to this, the victim B, as shown in attached Table 1 as from August 11, 2013 to September 24, 2013, posted a letter that the victim B cruelly committed an act against the defendant or injured the defendant, and the victim B conducted the diskettes demonstration on September 25, 2013, and the purpose of slandering the victim B was to inform the students of the wrong behavior.

C) As to the violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation) in the 2016 High Order 2095 Case, the victim B appeared as a witness of the above case No. 2014 High Order 1183 on July 15, 2015 and made a false statement contrary to the facts, and thus, to correct this, the victim B posted only the notice on the site used by the victim B, who is working as the president, on the part of the victim B.

2) On September 25, 2013, the Defendant interfered with around 11:00, and the Defendant continued to work at the site of the event hall for commemoration of the opening of C University on September 25, 2013. The participants at the time were already involved.