The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined as follows: (a) on the ground that the Defendant was grossly negligent in distributing the Defendant’s remarks and news report materials; and (b) posting the video of this case’s film, barring special circumstances, that the Defendant was obligated to pay emotional distress incurred by the Plaintiff in money.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the criteria and method for determining gross negligence, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 through 4, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the posting of the video of this case is subject to the National Assembly member's immunity as an act of a member's duty or an act of a member's non-performance of duty and voting, on the grounds that it is difficult to view that the posting of the video of this case is related to the free speech within the National Assembly of the defendant, a member of the National Assembly, and that the video of this case appears to have been posted on the Face North Korea account to promote his parliamentary activities. In light of the above, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the posting of the video of this case is an act of ordinarily incidental to the expression of opinion, such as a member's speech and voting, within the National Assembly.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its determination as above, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the exemption privilege and the act of taking part in the duties subject thereto, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the disclosure of intention under Article 50 of the Constitution, and by

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.