The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant cannot be deemed to have committed the instant crime by specifying the victim E by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

The Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Business (Defamation) and the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Business did not indicate false facts, and there was no awareness that the contents posted by the defendant are false facts.

In relation to the offense of insult, the defendant's act is merely a little and unusual expression that does not constitute insult.

In relation to the crime of intimidation, the defendant's act was not likely to be frightened by victims.

In relation to the crime of attempted coercion, the defendant is merely a proposal or request for agreement.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to Article 323(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for ex officio determination, the reason for a judgment of conviction is to clearly state the facts constituting an offense, the summary of evidence, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes. Thus, in a case where any of the grounds for a judgment of conviction was omitted in whole in the grounds for a judgment of conviction, it constitutes a violation of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment under Article 383 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505, Jun. 25, 2009). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court, while rendering a judgment of conviction on the part of the facts charged in the instant case, omitted the part corresponding to the offense of intimidation

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, even though there is a ground for ex officio reversal.

B. In full view of the comments and comments posted by the Defendant on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, a member of the Council operated by the victim E.