The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of a misunderstanding of the fact, the Defendant did not mean that “the Defendant shall have lost his guym guym guyms to the guym guym.”

In the written statement, the victim made a statement to the effect that “the fluor must die,” “the fluort, low fluort, and low fluort shall die.” In the written statement, the victim’s statement was made to the effect that “the fluort, low fluor, and low fluort shall die.” The victim’s statement to the effect that “the fluort, low fluort, low fluort shall not be driven, and the fluort shall be dead,” and the victim’s statement was added and embodied depending on the passage of time, and there is no credibility of the victim’s statement.

B. In light of the legal principles, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the fact that the Defendant stated that “the low strings, low strings, and low strings have to prevent driving,” merely prevents the content thereof from being too clear, thereby impairing the other party’s reputation, thereby constituting an insulting crime.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts are: (a) the victim stated in the investigative agency that the victim had expressed to the effect that “the victim had the victim expressed to the effect that “the victim would be unable to drive the low satise, the low satise shall not be driven, she must die, and she must throw off the satise,” (Catch No. 11 of the evidence record); (b) the slopeJ dispatched to the scene at the time, the Defendant stated to the effect that the victim continued the victim’s desire to “the low satise,” “to prevent the operation of the low satise,” and “the same satise shall not be driven” (Evidence No. 27 of the evidence record); (c) there is no evidence to suspect the credibility of the victim’s statement and the J; and (d) the victim.