The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the statement of the victim of the misunderstanding of facts and the photograph of the H-fash-fash-up, the victim should be deemed to have known the fact that the Defendant posted an insulting statement to the victim at around October 16, 2015.

Nevertheless, the lower court, unlike the foregoing, found otherwise, that the Defendant posted an insulting statement about the victim around May 2, 2015 at the latest, thereby making it possible to file a complaint by the victim at that time.

In light of the above, the prosecution against insult of each of the facts charged in this case was dismissed on the ground that the period of filing a complaint has exceeded, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting

B. The sentence that is unfair in sentencing (the sentence that is to suspend the sentence and suspend the sentence: a fine of one million won) of the lower court is too uneased and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The lower court: ① According to the screen (201 pages 201, 205 page of the investigation record) of the article on the charge of insulting the victim submitted to the police (hereinafter “the instant article”), the Defendant appears to have omitted the year of the compilation of the instant article, and the screen of the closure is deemed to have been cut around the year of the compilation of the instant article and around 2014, the same year as the year of the compilation of the instant article, in the case of Kakao Kao Kao Kao Kao Kao Kao Kao Kao Kao Gao Gao Ka, the year of the compilation of the comments and the year of the confirmation of the text are different (see, e.g., 140 pages of the investigation record). ② The victim sent the screen to the police by sending it to Kao Kao Kao Kao on October 16, 2015.

It was first known that the Defendant posted the instant text including the instant text.

“Along with the statement to the effect that “,” the screen (hereinafter referred to as “the screen to close the H”) was presented after the closure from H. However, the screen to close the H was to close the H, not the Defendant’s writing, and to close the H. ③ The screen to close the H was not excessive in line with the screen by cutting down the same writing submitted to the police upon the victim’s complaint.