The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 80,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. On September 3, 2010, the former part of the article indicated in the facts charged in the instant case against the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (defluence and misunderstanding of the legal principles) and the latter part of the article was posted by the Defendant on January 27, 2010, and the criminal act was terminated at the time, and the business sentence was finalized upon being sentenced to a fine of KRW 1 million on July 1, 201.

The Defendant did not delete the text due to a criminal act that has already been sentenced to a fine, and it cannot be deemed that there exists a new criminal act since he did not post a new text.

In addition, the instant indictment against the fact that the instant indictment had been left on the bulletin board from July 10, 201 to June 13, 2012, rather than deletion of the text that constitutes an act of having been sentenced to a fine, should be deemed to have been instituted again for the same act as the crime for which a final and conclusive judgment was rendered.

B. Although the Defendant was merely paid for the sale of books, the lower court erred by misapprehending that the Defendant provided driving education in return for tuition fees.

2. Determination

A. (i) Judgment on the violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Defamation) (hereinafter “instant bulletin board”) by the Defendant from July 10, 201 to June 13, 2012, the Defendant developed the message board of the website (hereinafter “instant bulletin board”) operated by the Defendant on “D (former names of victims E), F, and bad people’s own consciousness, as it is very rare to provide family education to these people, and as such, the Defendant has promoted his/her development without any personnel identification that he/she is the know-how of the research developer who has developed the eye for about 20 years, so he/she has no development of humanity.”