The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles or factual errors);

A. As to the violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Defamation), since the victim did not explicitly indicate that he/she was the perpetrator of the case of sexual assault against the female Madar Madar Madar Madar of the E area (hereinafter “E case”), this does not constitute defamation.

B. As to the insult, this paper merely refers to H and does not refer to the victim.

2. The Defendant asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment below, and the court below rejected the above assertion by stating in detail the Defendant’s assertion and its decision.

In addition to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is justified, taking into account the following facts and circumstances as a whole, which are admitted by the court below.

The defendant's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

① In light of the content of “this is a human harassment of the perpetrator against the victim” on March 21, 2018, H expressed as the perpetrator of the case, and this point is obvious, and this does not dispute the Defendant.

Since the Defendant subsequently revised the above article, along with H’s photograph, attached the victim’s photograph and specified the name of the victim, it is reasonable to view that the victim was also the perpetrator of the case in E.

② The victim alleged that he/she was not the perpetrator of the case, and that there was no agreement that the victim of the case did not file a complaint against him/her. In fact, the victim was issued a non-prosecution disposition for the victim in the investigation related to the case, stating that “no statement is made by the victim against the suspect” was stated in the detailed reasons.

The victim is the victim.