We reverse the judgment of the court below.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the national inquiry is made.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

As to the judgment of the court below on the misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, each of the contents of defamation, violation of Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (Defamation), and complaint

Therefore, the crime of false accusation is not established, and the defendant's distribution of the same contents is for the public interest, so there is no illegality.

With respect to the second instance judgment, the contents of e-mail sent by the defendant were true, not false, and the defendant and his defense counsel were not unfairly accepted as evidence, and the contents of pleadings were not properly reflected in the protocol of the trial, and there is an error in the trial procedure such as omitting the translation of the evidentiary materials in English.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below convicting each of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The second sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) of the lower court on the Defendant’s account of unreasonable sentencing is unreasonable.

The first instance court's imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) against the Defendant by the prosecutor (unfair punishment) is unfair.

Each appeal case against the judgment of the court below was consolidated by examining ex officio the case of ex officio judgment, and each appeal case against the judgment of the court below was merged. The defendant's each offense of the judgment of the court below constitutes concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and should be judged at the same time pursuant to Article 38 of the Criminal Act and sentenced to a single punishment. In this regard, the judgment of

However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

Of the facts charged in this case, the defendant is subject to disciplinary action against the victims of this part of the facts charged.