The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles believe that the victims believe that “when purchasing pine seedlings, assistance in growing and selling them, and the value of pine seedlings will be significantly increased in the future,” the Defendant purchased pine seedlings, but did not receive any assistance in real growing pine trees, etc., and the value of pine trees did not increase at all.

Accordingly, the Defendant determined that the victims were subject to fraud, and used the same expressions as stated in the facts charged in the instant case while conducting one person demonstration before the victims’ house. As such, the Defendant did not have any false representation, and did not have any perception that it was false.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of defamation by publicly alleging false facts. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, it may be recognized that the defendant, as stated in the judgment below, has damaged the reputation of victims by pointing out false facts and had awareness of false facts, and thus, the defendant's allegation in this part is rejected.

① Around June 15, 2018, the Defendant filed a complaint against the Victim B with the charge of fraud. On or around April 4, 2014, the suspected charge of the complaint was that the victim B would build a warehouse on the H land at Seopopo-si, the Defendant did not inform the Defendant of the construction cost of the construction cost despite having received KRW 90 million from the Defendant, and acquired the amount of money that was not paid, and around March 2015, the amount of the construction cost disbursement was obtained by the Defendant.