The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Of the facts charged in this case, October 14, 2016

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles or factual errors);

A. There is no fact that the statement as described in the facts charged was made on October 14, 2016 (Defamation Part 1) (a disagreement between the actual statement and the statement recorded in the facts charged).

2) The facts alleged in the grounds of appeal are without merit.

3) It is merely merely merely an expression of opinion or evaluation, and there is no possibility of dissemination in light of the relationship with C and D.

5) It cannot be deemed that it infringes on the social value or assessment of the victim. 6) There is no intention to defame the victim.

B. Defamation portion 1 of October 31, 2016 is merely an expression of opinion or evaluation, and does not indicate “facts”. 2) No statement of false facts was made.

3) In light of the relationship with F, etc., there is no possibility of dissemination. 4) It cannot be deemed that it infringes on the social value or evaluation of the victim.

5. There is no intention of defamation.

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. The facts charged in a criminal trial as of October 14, 2016 reveal the prosecutor’s proof of the facts charged, and the judge should find the defendant guilty with evidence having probative value that leads to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant’s interest (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5662, Dec. 24, 2002). The summary of this part of the Defendant’s statement appears to be “the other person (such as vessel, other team, etc.) does not cause any misunderstanding of the victim.” The victim and the other party’s statement (the other party’s statement) other than the victim’s statement and the other party’s statement (the other party’s statement did not hear that the other party did not examine the victim.).