The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles are consistent with objective facts, this article is not false nor false, and the defendant did not recognize that it was false.

In addition, even after examining the detailed contents of the article posted by the defendant, it is about the public interest to improve the working conditions and welfare of assistants for the disabled, and there was no purpose to slander the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal for ex officio determination, the prosecutor applied for changes in indictment with the content of deleting “satisfy thickness” as stated in Section 7 of the facts charged in the instant case by the court prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal for ex officio determination. Since the facts charged in the instant case was changed by this court’s permission, the judgment below was no longer maintained as it is.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the party, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged is correct, and there is no error of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

1) First of all, we examine whether the writing posted by the Defendant on the Kakakao Stockholm group hosting room is false or false. A) The whole part of the writing posted by the Defendant on the Kakao Stockholm group hosting room.