The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) Of the facts charged in the instant case, the part of the Defendant’s act of committing the crime on July 31, 2013, stating that “I will not engage in Stockholm, but make such comments regardless of who referred to him, and why I would have caused a great deal of a flap to anyone who would be able to spread his flab by hing the flab.” constitutes defamation by posting a false fact to another person as if the victim spreads his identity, etc., thereby undermining the general social assessment of the value of the victim’s personal value.

2) On July 31, 2013 and November 12, 2013, prior to the crime committed by the Defendant on January 29, 2014, the Defendant posted an insulting expression to the victim, thereby impairing the reputation of the victim, and did not fit for the victim. In addition, from the first sentence of the first sentence of January 29, 2014, the Defendant posted a “G” letter at all times against the parents who are obsciated from Austria, and were convicted of the Defendant at the lower court on November 12, 2013, and at the same time close to the crime of violating the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation) to fully recognize the purpose of slandering the victim.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. Determination 1 on misunderstanding of facts) The Defendant, from July 2013 to July 31, 2013, expressed “E” language D with the victim’s father D, thereby leaving a space. D, as the lower court explained, “The victim and his/her family members, who were the mother of D, posted an insulting article by expressing in Paris, Gu, G, Montreal, etc., and insulting the victim and his/her family members, were insulting into the expression “D,” and the victim of the damage as of July 31, 2013,” D.