The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant reported false facts and rejected G, even though G did not have engaged in the Defendant’s flaps, G was harming the Defendant by breathing flaps.

B. On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the defendant's punishment of the court below (the defendant and the prosecutor) is too unreasonable, while the prosecutor appealeds against the defendant by asserting that it is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As the decision of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts was properly made, the investigation agency made a statement to the effect that L, who has witnessed the field, had flabdoned from G when he was flabed with G while he was flabed with G while he was flabed with G, but the court below made a statement to the effect that the Defendant first flabed with G and flabed with D, and then there was a little difference in its circumstances. However, the investigation agency and the court below consistently made a witness to flabing the Defendant’s flab, but M and N’s statement was the same purport. ② The testimony made by G and his spouse D was hard to believe that G and its spouse’s statement did not flabing the Defendant’s flab and did not flab with the Defendant’s flab, and it is difficult to view it as the objective fact that the Defendant’s crime of injury was committed, even if it did not violate the Defendant’s objective reason.

B. The Defendant, who made a decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing, committed a contingency in dispute with D in relation to the accusation of defamation from D, and the Defendant also sustained two-way injury from D in the process of doing so.

Although the defendant was the victims, the defendant is the victims.