The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error, misunderstanding of legal principles and unreasonable sentencing)

A. M G G G G community sites claiming misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

The comments made on May 19, 2013 that the Defendant left, specifically, to the effect that the operator would use E member or E (hereinafter referred to as the “instant comments”), include the comments made on May 19, 2013, that the Defendant left, “The operator of a mobile site is an E member, and the pattern of ices that is not ices. For example, it is difficult to see that the total student meeting would go into North Korea and have been elected by the President of the Republic of Korea. For instance, it is also necessary to write down the comments on May 19, 201. The comments made by the first operator on November 26, 2014, are those entering H in Korea because the original operator would be commercialized.”

It is not a statement of fact, but a statement containing an expression that defames a person's reputation, which is not a statement of fact.

In addition, according to Article 9-3 of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act, in case of search and seizure of telecommunications, notification is made within 30 days, and the defendant was not notified within 30 days.

Finally, since H operators are not only one person, but also eight persons, the victim of defamation cannot be deemed to have been specified by comments.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby impairing the reputation of the victim through an information and communications network with an intention to defame the Defendant.

B. Even if there is no assertion of unreasonable sentencing, the lower court’s punishment (fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the crime of defamation is established as to whether the comments of this case contain expressions that defame reputation.