The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the summary of the grounds for appeal or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as stated in each of the facts charged.

Even if the defendant made such a statement,

Even if the Defendant discovered a new sensing dog similar to the lost dog at that time and tried to verify one’s own personal identity, and then took such a speech during the process of making an insulting speech from the community, including the victims, and making such a speech in a timely fasion, and under the social common sense, the phrase “open Domine” was insignificant to the extent that it impairs another’s reputation compared to the general public, so the Defendant’s remarks as stated in each of the facts charged in the instant case are not contrary to the social rules, and thus, the illegality should be avoided.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting the defendant of each of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or thereby affecting the conclusion of judgment.

The punishment (one million won in penalty) imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine can be recognized by the Defendant’s assertion of false facts or insulting remarks as stated in each of the facts charged in the instant case, thereby impairing the honor of the victim E and insulting the victim I.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

Victims E and I consistently made a statement from an investigative agency to the court of the court below as stated in the facts charged of this case.

The statements are made by the victims, and there is no reason to reject the credibility of the statements by the victims, and the police officer J's statement at the time of the instant case also conforms to the statements by the victims in lieu of the legal statements by the police officer at the time of the instant case. Therefore, the Defendant is