The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall disclose the summary of the judgment of innocence.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant sent the instant text message to E only and did not send it to G, and only sent it to E does not satisfy the performance of the crime of defamation. As such, the Defendant does not constitute a crime of defamation on reputation.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the person who purchased health food at the point D in Mineyang-si, and the victim E is a person who operates the above D branch.

The Defendant from around 07:15 on September 8, 2014

9. From October to October, the Defendant’s house No. 606-dong 304, 304, which used a usual cell phone, sent the phrase “from around to around 14 million won to around 10,600,000 to around 160,000 won in a foreign country, since it is disadvantageous from around to around 200 to around 300,000 to around 300,000 to around 100,000, and the term “from around 200 to around 304,000” using the Defendant’s cell phone used to use a usual cell phone, for the purpose of slandering the victim.

7 As a result, the Defendant damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out facts through information and communications networks.

3. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the source of the instant text message was the Defendant, and the fact that G sent the instant text message to E around September 10, 2014. [G sent the instant text message to the said temporary border E, following the instant text message, “Is and Is and Is and Is and Is and Is and Is and (Defendants).”

E receives each of the above text messages and “A's written test is essential to G. The record remains. I't am special.

In other words, the instant text message was sent. (b) However, the Defendant was the Defendant, and G sent the instant text message to E.

G directly provides the instant text message from the Defendant.