The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not make a statement with respect to the victim F, G, etc. as described in the facts charged.

B. The lower court’s sentence (2 million won in penalty) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged was an employee E of the skin management shop operated by the victim D in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

The Defendant, despite the fact that the Defendant had a legal spouse and the victim did not have any outright, destroyed the honor of the victim by pointing out false facts on two occasions as follows.

1) On March 13, 2016, the Defendant, in the foregoing burial around March 13, 2016, calls with F, an employee, and “the representative is a woman.”

Many males are running the shop with male pigs.

In order to bring high-priced cosmetics into large amounts, it is displayed in mind by male money.

“The honor of the victim was damaged by openly pointing out false facts.”

2) On March 14, 2016, the Defendant’s “the president is a consensus” in the context of the hearing of G and H, who is an employee, at the above store.

“The honor of the victim was damaged by openly pointing out false facts.”

B. The lower court also argued to the effect that this part of the grounds for appeal were the same, and the lower court, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, has credibility in the F’s legal statement, which corresponds to the facts charged, as to defamation around March 13, 2016, and around March 14, 2016, there is a concrete and rational statement made by G and H in the lower court that conforms to the facts charged, and that the Defendant believed that the Defendant was only the victim to move his speech, but the content that the Defendant appeared differs from the ordinary meaning of “subcomp.” and that there is no room to confirm the facts.