In the writing posted by the Defendant, the expressions, such as “homicides, 5.16 Military Readings, U.S. and U.S. Presidents, and anti-sars,” “K’s position as the Secretary of the Blus Office,” “Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement supporting, and the construction of the Jeju naval Base, etc., such expressions as “the impeachment of a portrait in history,” “sark,” “espionage,” “sark,” “espionage,” and “politically replaced cancer viruses are spread across the country”, “computers are deemed to be computer technicians, corporate management, and teaching.” Although it is sufficient to view that the expressions, such as “a person who wishes to be a candidate for the 18th presidential election through a statement of specific facts,” and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

Judgment

The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the Defendant’s respective comments pointed out by the Prosecutor as the grounds for appeal are written as a whole, on the ground that: (a) the Defendant’s unilateral opinion on the character of the Defendant against F, K, and L candidates; or (b) the quality as the presidential candidate; and (c) the candidate’s political ability and political activity, etc.

The circumstances stated by the court below are the "suman", "the chief of the post office", "Korea-U.S. FTA supporting", "hacker", "espionage", "espionage", and "computers" among the notices written in this part of the facts charged.

or corporate management.

Mah, Professor

Although there is room to regard the part "Maod" as a statement of verifiable facts, all the expressions before and after the part are merely an expression of opinion about the qualities, etc. as a candidate of F, K, and L who is not a statement of fact, or an expression of negative evaluation thereof, and considering these parts as the overall intent of the defendant, they are clearly distinguishable from other parts.