The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (related to the crime of defamation) 1) Since the content of “favouring as Favour” delivered by the Defendant to her natives is true, it does not constitute a crime of defamation under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act.

2) The Defendant sent or sent the above contents to friendly C, D, and E in the course of talking on them, and thus there is no performance.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) In order to establish a crime of defamation by a false statement of false facts under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving that the false fact was false (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do49, Oct. 28, 2010). The following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the following: ① the victim consistently stated that his wife is not in any factual relationship with the Defendant; ② the Defendant reviewed the victim by adding the victim to the Defendant at the time of the divorce lawsuit with his wife upon suspicion of the above inhuman relationship with his wife for more than one year; ② the Defendant’s revocation of the lawsuit against the victim without submitting any other evidence; ③ the Defendant was sufficiently recognized that the Defendant was false, and thus, this part of the facts and arguments are without merit.

2) In the crime of defamation by a statement of false facts under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, performance refers to a state in which many and unspecified persons can be recognized. Thus, even if a fact is distributed to an individual, performance is likely to be disseminated to an unspecified or many unspecified persons. On the other hand, performance is deemed to exist if there is no such possibility.