The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As stated in the erroneous determination of facts, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts, as otherwise alleged in the lower judgment. A) The Defendant did not have sent C text messages identical to this part of the facts charged.

B) On March 19, 2012, the Defendant related to defamation did not call to D for the same speech as that of the facts charged. C) The Defendant did not send text messages identical to this part of the facts charged to the Victim F.

2) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of facts-finding on September 20, 2012, the lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (fine 2 million won) is too unreasonable and unfair. (b) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of facts-finding on the defamation on September 20, 2012, the Defendant could recognize the fact that the Defendant, by telephone, made a false statement on the same facts as that indicated in this part of the facts charged, thereby impairing the victim F’s reputation. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts-finding.

2 The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s judgment as to insult, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant sent C a text message referring to the fraud of the victim B as shown in this part of the facts charged, and C merely is the offender of the above victim, and C does not have a relative relationship or special relation, and thus, the content of the text message sent by the Defendant is likely to be disseminated to an unspecified or many unspecified persons from C.

Therefore, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is justifiable.

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding defamation on March 19, 2012, the Defendant was a telephone call to D employee of the Board of Audit and Inspection.