The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

Each of the facts charged in the instant case is subject to intimidation.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) misunderstanding of facts: (a) although the Defendant borrowed KRW 5 million from the victim to borrow money from the victim, the Defendant had the intent to repay the money to the victim at the time, and actually repaid the money to the victim on or around December 2012, the Defendant did not acquire money.

(2) There is no fact that the Defendant made a statement that the victim seems to suffer disadvantage to the victim’s or her husband, the external third village, and the married couple’s status.

(3) The content posted by the Defendant in violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (Defamation) was most true and posted for public interest.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In relation to the violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Defamation), among the facts charged in the instant case, the ex officio determination prosecutor applied for permission to change the facts charged in the list of crimes in the lower judgment from March 24, 2013 to June 8, 2013 as stated in the list of crimes below, and from April 24, 2013 to May 16:53, 2013, the facts charged in the instant case constituted “43 times in Do, as described in the list of crimes below,” which read as “from April 24, 2013 to May 24, 2013, as indicated in the list of crimes, 11 times in the list of crimes in the lower judgment,” and this court changed the subject matter of the judgment as permission.

These parts and the remaining parts are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and eventually the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as they are.

3. Determination of the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts: Provided, however, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

A. The lower court’s judgment on the part of fraud against the victim C is legitimate.