The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, the church homepage closure data and the sign language closure data submitted by the victim to an investigation agency constitutes illegally collected evidence, and the contents of the writing posted by the defendant are difficult to view that the important part was revealed by conforming to objective facts in light of the overall purport, and even if the purpose was not to defame the victim, the court below convicted the victim of the facts charged of this case. In this context, the court below erred by misapprehending of facts and misapprehending of legal principles

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court determined that, in light of the following circumstances recognized by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant, through an information and communications network, disclosed false information for the purpose of slandering the victim, thereby impairing the victim’s reputation. ① The text posted by the Defendant on the website of the D intersection E (hereinafter “instant text”).

Among them, the phrase “the victim has neglected to suppress or disrupt the victim’s acts against the teachers, etc. accompanied by the defendant,” which is a negative assessment of the victim’s acts, and the phrase’s prior meaning of the word and as a general public perception in society average, should understand the meaning of “conception.” As such, the phrase in this case’s phrase “the victim has taken 14 million won from the members,” which can be deemed to be a content that treats the victim as a person who committed a crime or tort, and therefore, it constitutes a statement of specific facts sufficient to undermine the social evaluation of the victim or to undermine the social value of the victim.

② On March 12, 2015, the Defendant changed the name of the victim and “I’s representative from the victim to the J and, in return, the Defendant paid KRW 14 million to the victim.”