The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

except that this judgment.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. In light of the fact-misunderstanding and misunderstanding of the legal principles (1) and the relation between the Defendant and the victim B on July 20, 2016, and the circumstances surrounding the Defendant’s remarks as stated in this part of the facts charged, the Defendant merely expressed a temporary decentralization against the victim, and the said remarks constitute an act of intimidation under the Criminal Act or an intentional act of intimidation against the Defendant.

shall not be appointed by a person.

(B) On August 4, 2016, it is unclear whether the Defendant sent the victim the text message as stated in this part of the facts charged, and the Defendant sent the said text message to the household.

Even if the above constitutes an act of intimidation or intent of intimidation is not recognized as of July 20, 2016.

(C) The illegality of the Defendant’s assertion that each of the above actions constitutes a justifiable act that does not go against the social rules and thus, constitutes a justifiable act that does not go against the social rules.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of the legal principles (not guilty part of the court below) did not indicate the victim's name in the article posted by the defendant.

Even if the contents of the expression are indicated in full view of the surrounding circumstances and facts, it is sufficient to find out the fact that the defendant is the victim, and thus, the Defendant’s act of carrying the writing in this part of the facts charged constitutes a crime of defamation of reputation against the victim.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On August 4, 2016, as to whether the Defendant sent text messages to the victim on August 4, 2016, the lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (guilty part of the lower court’s judgment) was erroneous (i.e., whether or not the Defendant sent the victim’s text messages, and even based on evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the Defendant did not appear to have been sent or the Defendant’