All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The costs of the original judgment and the trial shall be borne by the defendant.

1. The lower court acquitted each of the facts charged of violating the Act on the Promotion of Utilization of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Violation of Information and Communications Network Act, etc.) concerning leakage of information, including the Kakakao Stockholm conversation, and violation of the Act on the Promotion of Utilization of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (Distribution of obscenity), and convicted the remainder of the facts charged.

As examined below, the Defendant appealed against the judgment below on the ground of misconception of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to the part of the aforementioned conviction, on the ground that the sentencing was unfair, and the Prosecutor appealeded on the ground of misunderstanding of the legal principles as to only the violation of the Act on Promotion of Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. (Distribution of obscenity) among the acquitted portion, and thus, the acquitted portion of the judgment below on the violation of the Act on Promotion of Use of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Violation of Information and Communications Network Information and Communications Network Act, etc.)

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The misunderstanding of facts and legal principles are not only true that Defendant 1 misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of the law did not drinked boomed at the victim K and Sari, but also did not slander the above victim. Thus, the posting of such facts on the Kakao Kakao cannot constitute a crime of violating the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation) against the above victim. The posting of the Defendant’s pictures and S that the victim and the above victim were similar to S does not constitute insult, but also the Defendant did not have an intent to insult.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles regarding the part that recognized the defendant as the crime of defamation against K and the crime of insult against the victim R.

2) The lower court rendered unfair sentencing.