2. Judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s (1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, and Defendant did not have any intent to actually receive an agreement from I, and thus there was no intention to do so.

② Inasmuch as the phrase “final” or “final” is an infinite expression, the Defendant does not insult I, on the ground that it is merely an infinite expression, that the phrase “final” or “finite” of the 2017 ancient Order 81.

(B) The sentence of the first instance court (two years of the suspension of the execution of six months of imprisonment, and the order to observe the protection) is too unreasonable.

(2) The second judgment of the court below (A) is not an obscene statement on the list of crimes attached to the misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

(B) The sentence of the lower court No. 2 (an amount of KRW 5 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The first instance court’s sentence and the second instance court’s sentence are too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination as to the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The lower court determined that the content of the Defendant’s comments constitutes a threat of harm and injury exceeding the permissible limit under social norms, and the Defendant’s intentional intent is also acknowledged, taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant filed a complaint or attempted to file a criminal complaint against various persons, including I, in relation to the debate on the Internet market, including DNA personnel dys, and ② the Defendant also appears to have been aware of such circumstances, ② the Defendant posted a notice to the effect that I would be subject to criminal punishment, and the Defendant was investigated by the investigation agency, ③ the Defendant was investigated as the victim at the investigation agency, ③ the Defendant demanded an excessive amount of mutual agreement several times, ④ the Defendant used a threatening expression, such as the Defendant’s posted “as soon as possible,” and ④ the Defendant’s publication constitutes a threat of harm and injury exceeding the permissible extent under social norms.