The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to defamation, the Defendant gave the minimum wage to the part-time student of the victim, confirmed how the discarded food is processed, and did not make a statement that defames the victim’s reputation.

B. As to the insult, the Defendant did not have made the victim’s insulting speech identical to that of “year”.

2. We examine ex officio the appeal ex officio, and the defendant filed each appeal against the judgment of the court below, and examined the appeal case in the first instance court. However, as long as each crime of the judgment of the court below on the market is in a concurrent relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below should be rendered at the same time and a sentence should be imposed. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to a trial by this court, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal of authority, and this is examined below.

3. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to defamation, G and F consistently entered the convenience store operated by the Defendant from the investigative agency to the court from the investigation agency to the court, and stated to the effect that “the injured party who gets away from the Defendant’s wife in a planned way not to raise monthly salary for three months after the injured party worked as his wife,” and that “the injured party becomes a victim of convenience store’s convenience store’s goods, and is a long-term life from the Defendant’s wife who reported theft.”

The consistent statement (the defendant is the victim of the above witness's employer and the above witness's employer is not able to believe the above statement, but the F submitted a factual confirmation (the eight pages of the investigation record) and stated the statement in a very detailed manner, G was working until August 2017 and was not in an employment relationship at the time of testimony (in particular, the minimum level of time is below the minimum level).