The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles were committed by the Defendant in the course of operating franchise stores with the intent of causing damage to the prisoners of war from the unfair crossing of the head office, and the other victims did not bring about the Internet camera, and there was no intention or purpose to defame the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding defamation under the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. refers to the perception and intent of a fact that may undermine another person's social evaluation; "the purpose of an accusation" requires the intention or purpose of an explanation; "a statement of fact" refers to a report or statement on facts, which is replaced with an expression of opinion, the subject of value judgment or evaluation, time and spatially and present facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6371, Sept. 28, 2006). 2) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, it is recognized that the defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out specific facts that may undermine the social evaluation through an information and communications network, and had a purpose of defamation with intent to defame or defame the victim.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

The Defendant entered into a franchise agreement with the victim who operates poppy carpets “C” and operated the “C funeral store,” and listen to the horses that he received the victim’s request and paid KRW 7 million in the margin of 00,000,000,000 to the victim. When the “C funeral store” was established near the “C funeral store,” the Defendant raised the complaint.