The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles in finding a guilty on the part of the defendant, since the victim made a divorce by expressing false facts about the defendant's husband, and the defendant made a statement that damages the defendant's reputation continuously and in the course of demanding the victim's death with his intention, it constitutes a legitimate act when the defendant bucks with the victim. In addition, since the defendant was at the time of the victim's death with the victim, it cannot be established

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Even if the defendant's assertion that he/she suffered damage from the victim's statement is a misunderstanding of legal principles, the illegality cannot be excluded by Article 20 of the Criminal Act as an act of violence that is reasonable in light of social norms that can be permitted at the time of the victim's buck.

In addition, even if the defendant's assertion that the victim was when her her son was taken, the consent as referred to in Article 24 of the Criminal Act should not be contrary to ethical and moral social rules. If the defendant was in a state of vision in the process of closing the victim's death, if the defendant was in a state of vision in the process of using the victim's death, it cannot be deemed as a result of the victim's truth, and it cannot be deemed as a result of the victim's death, and it cannot be deemed as the above consent.

Therefore, the defendant's above misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, there are conditions favorable to the Defendant, such as the circumstance leading the Defendant to the instant crime, and there is no record of criminal punishment.

However, the defendant did not agree with the victim until he or she reaches the trial, and he or she did not agree with the victim.