The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not prepare comments such as the written facts charged in the victim’s personal data program, and the Defendant prepared a third party by hackinging the personal data of the Defendant.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the statement on the charge of this case was prepared after the change from H to “I,” which is the clinic of the Defendant’s Lone Star Program Account used by the Defendant; ② the statement on the victim’s photograph was not made indiscreetly with respect to the photographs posted by multiple users; ② the third party changed the Defendant’s account to be done by hacking and changed the Defendant’s account to be done, and the third party did not have any reason to leave the above statement, and ③ the Defendant did not have access to the above account due to the lack of knowledge of the password of the above account; and ③ the Defendant did not have access to the above account.

However, in full view of the fact that the above account established by public disclosure has been transferred to a non-disclosure after the police investigation, the defendant can be recognized as having written comments such as written in the facts charged. Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. In the criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of unfair trial-orientedness and directness of sentencing, there exists an area unique to the first instance court’s determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment on the ground that new materials of sentencing have not been submitted in the trial.