The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is recognized that the Defendant conspired with G to send the same text message as the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment (hereinafter “instant text message”).

However, the content of the instant text message is true, and even if the content of the instant text message is false, the Defendant did not know that it was false, so the Defendant did not constitute a crime of violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation).

B. The sentence of the lower court (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the facts charged is the head of the E-Housing Redevelopment Development and Improvement Project Partnership (hereinafter “E Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Partnership”) in Gwangju-dong-gu, and the victim F is the head of the said E-Transparency Development Committee (hereinafter “the Committee”).

No person shall defame another person by openly pointing false facts through an information and communications network with intent to defame another person.

Nevertheless, on January 22, 2016, in collusion with G, the Defendant sent to the members of the instant association a letter of false fact that “The instant committee will receive 200 million won funds from the rearrangement business entity of the redevelopment area and spread a will to dismiss the head of the association,” at the E-Housing redevelopment improvement business office located in Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-gu.

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the honor of the victim.

B. On the grounds delineated below, the lower court determined that the Defendant violated the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation) on the following grounds: (a) the content of the instant text message was false; (b) the Defendant was aware that it was false; and (c) the Defendant was also purposeed to slander the Defendant.