The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal, F’s statement in the court below and the investigation report (person for reference E telephone conversations), investigation report (person for reference F telephone conversations), and witness E’s partial statement in the court below’s court below, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, inasmuch as the Defendant found him guilty on October 2014 for the first time, “D is under the period of suspension of execution,” and as stated in this part of the facts charged, “D is under the period of suspension of execution,” and “D is under bad credit, and is a criminal before and after 11.” This part of the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. On October 2014, the Defendant, who was charged with this part of the facts charged, called “D is a person with bad credit standing, and has been a person before and after the 11-year grace period,” thereby openly impairing the reputation of the victim by openly speaking the victim’s previous conviction, etc.

B. The lower court’s judgment: (a) the following circumstances revealed through the record, i.e., the Defendant’s statement that “the period of probation has not yet expired” to the firstman of October 2014, but the victim is a bad credit holder or a suspended sentence, as stated in the facts charged.

(2) Meanwhile, the victim D stated from the investigative agency to this court that “E took the speech that the victim D was a person with bad credit standing,” but this is merely a specialized statement concerning E’s statement, and the direct evidence that corresponds to this part of the facts charged is called E.