The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The fact that the Defendant misunderstanding the fact had a conversation related to I, K, and the Defendant’s withdrawal from the Defendant at each time and place of the judgment of the first instance court, but “G compilation chief and H were in infinite relations as stated in the judgment of the first instance court.

There is no fact that “the instant remarks” (hereinafter referred to as “the instant remarks”) impairs the honor of the victim G.

B. The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles, made the instant speech to I/K for household affairs.

In light of the fact that I and K immediately reported this to the victim, and the defendant did not have any questions about the company's employees while in office, there is no possibility of dissemination, so there is no performance, which is the element of the crime of defamation of reputation.

(c)

Sentencing 1 Deliberation Form (1 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The first instance judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts is reliable in each testimony of the witness I, K, and G of the first instance trial.

The Defendant found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by recognizing the fact that the Defendant made the instant remarks at each time and at each place as stated in the judgment of the first instance court.

Unless there are exceptional cases where it is deemed significantly unfair to maintain the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness at the first instance trial, the appellate court shall not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness at the first instance trial just because the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness at the first instance trial is different from the appellate court's judgment. In light of the above legal principles, a thorough examination of the record is consistent and concrete, and in particular, it is impossible for the first instance court to find out the circumstances which make false statements because the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness at the first instance trial was different from those of the appellate court's judgment, and in light of the fact that the first instance court's testimony was consistent and concrete, and in particular, it cannot be found that the first instance court's testimony

Since the judgment seems to be remarkably unfair, the first deliberation above is just.