The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not specify the subject matter of this case as the victim, and prepared and posted this case’s text so that the Defendant does not suffer from the same damage, so there was no intention to openly insult the victim.

Therefore, the defendant is not guilty.

2. The Defendant has the same assertion as the Defendant alleged in the lower court.

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion and its decision.

The judgment of the court below is examined in comparison with records, and the expression of "operator ice distance", "operator ice operator", "waste operator", etc. of this case against the victim and criticizes the victim, the defendant posted this case on the Internet camera that can be seen by many members, and the defendant posted a notice on March 12, 2015, nine days prior to the publication of this case on the Internet camera (H-related club) operated by the victim, and the defendant posted a notice on March 12, 2015, which raises an issue on the Internet camera operated by the victim. The defendant's notice of this case overlaps with the part corresponding to the part corresponding to the Internet camera operated by the victim, and in light of these circumstances, the members of this case requested the confirmation of facts, and in light of these circumstances, it can be seen that the defendant could not have specified the "operator" referred to in this case as the victim as the victim.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just, and the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.