All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Of the cases No. 2016 No. 4838, and No. 2017 No. 306, the defendant's judgment was rendered. 2016.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of the legal principles) 2016 High Order 5849 (the judgment of the court below 1) did not inflict an injury on the victim.

B) The Defendant did not insult the victim in 2016 and 893 (the second judgment).

C) Defamation around August 26, 2014, 2016, 1352, 2775 (Joint Judgment of the lower court) (Joint Judgment of the third court) constituted defamation: The Defendant did not defame the victim.

Defamation on August 10, 2015: Even if the defendant made a statement to the victim in the lower judgment, the crime of defamation is not established due to the lack of performance.

A person who defames another person on August 11, 2015: The defendant does not defame the victim.

Even though the defendant made a statement in the judgment of the court below against the victim, the crime of defamation is not established due to the lack of performance.

Assaults against each of the persons on September 16, 2015, October 20, 2015, and February 27, 2016: The defendant has no record of assaulting the victim.

Injury: The defendant does not inflict any injury on the victim.

Disturbance of business: Although the defendant has made an oral dispute at the time and place indicated in the judgment of the court below, the victim's business has not been hindered due to such dispute.

2) The punishment of each court below (the first instance court: the fine of KRW 3 million; the second instance court; the fine of KRW 500,000: the fine of KRW 500,000: the fine of KRW 500,000: the fine of KRW 4 million) is too heavy.

B. In light of the prosecutor’s protocol of police statement to J (Defamation around September 6, 2015, the Defendant’s police interrogation protocol, etc. attached to the police interrogation protocol against the Defendant, etc., the victim J reported to a fire station by the victim J to the fire station.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Of the former part of the instant case’s former part promulgated by the Defendant, the part of “two-minutes B of fire station staff of the fire station by reporting to the fire station that the front of 106 had first been reported to the fire station” was false, but the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the said part of the facts charged.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Ex officio judgment is made by the defendant.