beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, that there was no fact that the Defendant prepared and posted a letter stating that “I inform Ma of the fact,” such as the facts constituting a crime, on the C’s free bulletin board, and there was no fact that G sent E’s photograph to G with the former husband F by attaching a photograph of E to the marriage photograph with the former husband F.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (eight months of imprisonment, two years of probation, observation of protection, and community service hours) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. misunderstanding of facts or legal principles 1) Violation of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation) by duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated: (a) the instant notice was posted on the C’s free bulletin board; (b) the Defendant’s address was confirmed to be Guro-gu Seoul where the Defendant and F were living for marriage; (c) the Defendant posted a letter on the C’s free bulletin board even before the instant notice was made; and (c) the Defendant had access to a group in the name of the Defendant from another on the C’s free bulletin board at the time of the preparation of the instant notice; and (d) the F was sent from March 13 to March 17, 2013 to March 17, 2013.
In other words, the date and time of access to the C website from other countries is limited to twice on March 15, 2013 and on March 14, 2013, 02:05:47, and on March 14, 2013, there is a difference between the date, time, and frequency on which the instant notice was made and the number of times, and ④ the Defendant raised the possibility that F would have used the Defendant’s access to the access domicile of the Defendant’s computer using the bypass server from other countries, but if F could have access to the C website via the bypass server, it is twice.