Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A. The Defendant B’s appeal is dismissed.

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles do not limit the reporter the same words as those written in the facts charged, and the reporter is in interview with other merchants.

In addition, there was a question such as the entry in the facts charged at the time, but it was against the Director of the Management Office, and it is not about H expressed as the victim.

Even if the defendant had such a speech while in an interview, he did not have the awareness of falsity, and he had an interview for the public interest, and there was no purpose of slandering.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable because the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) did not have the perception that the statement written in the facts charged, which was the Defendant, was false, by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and Defendant 2 responded to an interview of a public nature as the chief of the management division, and there was no purpose of slandering the victim.

2) The sentence (an amount of KRW 800,000) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable for the criminal defendant to be sentenced to sentencing.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A 1) The lower court acquitted Defendant A on the part of defamation caused by Defendant A’s remarks related to the power distribution team construction among the charges charged by Defendant A, which is a single comprehensive crime, on the grounds of the judgment, found Defendant A not guilty, and sentenced Defendant A to a fine of KRW 500,000,000 upon conviction of the part of defamation caused by parking-related remarks

Therefore, although the part of the judgment of the court below's non-guilty in the reasoning is an indivisible principle of appeal, the part is not subject to adjudication, in fact, from the target of attack and defense between the parties (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2820, Mar. 12, 1991). The judgment of the court below is to be limited to the guilty part among the judgment of the court below.

2) The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant, at the office of the branch office of the branch office of the J Union, Seoul I building and A325, in the early August 2015, in the F press reporter G’s interview.