A. Although the Defendant did not know the same content as the facts charged in this case, the court below accepted the facts charged in this case and found the Defendant guilty. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the legal principles, even if the Defendant made the above remarks, it cannot be said that the Defendant’s act infringed upon D’s social reputation, and thus, despite the fact that the Defendant’s act did not constitute defamation under the Criminal Act, the lower court convicted the Defendant with an excessive charge. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on defamation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

C. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing (the fine of KRW 2,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, it can be recognized that the defendant made a statement to the effect that "D issued a receipt of false donations in return for money at the C Branch" at the hearing of 4 to 5 persons, such as E and F, as stated in the facts charged in the instant case. Therefore, the judgment below which found the guilty of the facts charged in the instant case is just, and there is no illegality in the misconception of facts alleged by the defendant, and therefore, the defendant'

B. In order to establish a crime of defamation as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, a specific fact should be indicated that is likely to infringe on a specific person’s social value or evaluation. Whether an expression constitutes defamation should be determined by objective evaluation in accordance with the social norms of the expression.

Therefore, value neutrality expressions were used.

Even if social norms, it is judged that the social evaluation of a specific person has been lowered.