The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In regard to the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (1) on the violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Defamation), there was no intent to defame the victims, and there was no awareness that the writing posted by the Defendant was false, and the honor of the victims cannot be deemed to have been damaged due to the comments posted by the

(2) As to the violation of the Copyright Act, victims are allowed to see their pictures posted in their Kakaoto account to many and unspecified persons, so it shall be deemed that the Defendant impliedly consented to the reproduction of the above pictures.

B. At the time of committing each of the instant crimes with mental disorder, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, three years of enforcement oil, and probation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the following facts can be acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below on the violation of the Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection Act (Defamation).

1. The victim C is one child who is a male male in 1988, and the victim D was a male in 1984 and did not engage in side business, such as an agency for visual sales or a tobacco import specialty.

② The Defendant and the victims were not aware of each other before committing the instant crime.

③ On March 10, 2014, the Defendant, without the consent of the victim, reproduced four copies of the victim’s accompanying photograph to the Defendant’s spouse E in the Defendant’s Kakaotogram account without the consent of the victim, published the statement in the facts charged in the instant case, stating that “CN’s third son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son.” On March 21, 2014, the Defendant reproduced four copies of the photograph from