All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant (the factual errors and misapprehension of the legal principles) posted the same article as the facts charged on the F Press Internet website, this is for the public interest, and there is considerable reason to believe that the alleged facts are true, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that there is a purpose of slandering the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The prosecutor (e.g., imprisonment for four months, one year of suspended sentence, and 80 hours of community service order) of the lower court is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. In the lower court’s determination of the Defendant’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine, the Defendant also asserted the same purport as the above grounds for appeal, and the lower court’s judgment under the title No. 2, “the Defendant’s assertion and

(b).

In light of the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of unreasonable sentencing

A. In light of the fact that the sentencing, based on the statutory penalty, is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and reasonable scope by comprehensively taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty and the fact that the sentencing of the first instance court does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and that the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the first instance sentence falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, the first instance judgment is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion.