The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of legal principles) and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant exercised his right to find a victim who is a victim of fraud, and thus does not constitute a crime. The mere fact that the Defendant’s text message on September 1, 2016 (hereinafter “the instant text message”) stated in the facts charged only to B and the victim (hereinafter “the instant text message”) is stating that “the Defendant, from Korea to Korea, has inflicted damage on KRW 00 million by fraud, and is hackkh and live a friendly life.”

As examined below, the delivery route is Defendant B G C (Appellant).

The issue of defamation of this case is related to the point of defamation of this case.

On September 2, 2016, the text message provides that "the defendant will inform the public and private society of the irregularities of the victim and store the victim in society."

The transmission route is Defendant C (Appellant).

Related to the point of intimidation of this case.

It is not the sending of the sending, and it is not the sending to the Embassy's civil society. Therefore, it is not the crime of defamation.

B The text message of this case is written to the Defendant, and if sent to the victim, the victim is a local citizen who stated that the victim will only be the Defendant.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mistake of facts or defamation.

The punishment of the court below (one million won) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

In full view of the following circumstances as to whether the Defendant’s delivery of the instant text message as a victim of fraud was justifiable and is not false or false, the content of the instant text message, which explicitly changed the victim to fraud, is false, and the Defendant cannot be deemed as a victim of fraud.

The Defendant’s act of delivering the instant text messages does not constitute a legitimate exercise of rights.

Defendant.