The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles do not have any speech that defames the victim’s reputation, and even if so, such fact exists.

Even if this constitutes a justifiable act that does not constitute a crime of defamation or public performance, or that does not violate social norms, as a result of an act conducted in the course of collecting evidence to file a complaint against defamation victims and G, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the prosecutor applied for changes in indictment with respect to the defendant as stated in the following facts: the prosecutor applied for changes in indictment with respect to the defendant by this court; and the subject of the trial was changed by this court. Thus, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

Although the above ground for ex officio reversal exists, the above ground for misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and it will be examined.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly adopted and examined the allegation of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, namely, E made a statement in the lower court to the effect that “A defendant made his phone call to the effect that “the victim and G have a sexual intercourse at the law party where G was in a scarcity,” and the victim also made a statement in the lower court to the effect that “the victim had a direct statement from E” was “the victim,” and the content of each of the above statements appears to be reliable as it is not only consistent with the statement at the investigative agency, but also it appears that the victim’s reputation has been infringed, such as the facts charged in the instant case.