The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of legal principles’ failure to pay the remainder of KRW 15 million to the victim, thereby filing a civil lawsuit against the victim, and the Defendant, who purchased an insurance policy through the victim, an insurance solicitor, to subscribe to an accident insurance in 2009, but terminated an insurance contract in light of the fact that it was cancer insurance in 2012, different from the victim’s explanation, the Defendant stated the facts constituting the crime of defamation as indicated in the judgment below.

Even if there is no awareness about the defendant's falsity, and the facts alleged are somewhat exaggerated, and its contents cannot be viewed as false, so the crime of defamation under Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act cannot be applied to the defendant's act.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of two million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and legal doctrine reveals the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e.,: (a) the Defendant: (b) stated that around February 9, 2012, the Defendant had the victim deceptiond the Defendant and had another person engage in insurance business by deceiving the latter; and (c) the Defendant did not receive part of the construction cost from the victim; and (d) concluded that the insurance contract was terminated due to the difference in the victim’s explanation.

Even for such reason, the victim had the Defendant deceptiond and had the Defendant take the insurance, or had the Defendant take the insurance.

In light of the fact that it is difficult to see that the place where the Defendant committed the crime is currently working for the victim, and the social assessment related to the credibility of the victim’s defamation crime is likely to have been sufficiently lowered, etc., the Defendant’s specific falsity is likely to undermine the social assessment of the victim.