A. The contents of the article of this case, which is not a false fact, is not a false fact, and even if it constitutes a false fact, there is a justifiable reason to mislead the defendant as a true fact, and there is no purpose of slandering the article for the public interest.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the charged facts of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court determined that: (a) only accused the victim by deceptioning the investment money; (b) G did not file a complaint with the content that there was an inappropriate connection between M and the victim; and (c) the investigative agency took a non-prosecution disposition against the victim’s suspicion of fraud; and (b) the Defendant drafted an article as interviewed with G.

However, G does not have any interview with the accused or provided information to the accused from the investigative agency to the court of the original trial, and the content of his opinion is different from the contents of the article in the presence of the accused.

The Defendant made a statement as “,” (3) the Defendant continued to change his statement about what is the contents of the interview with G, and the Defendant was in fact difficult to understand what is the content of G, and (4) the Defendant prepared an article after completing the news gathering process based on the interview contents.

One of the arguments is that the content of coverage that the defendant himself/herself has taken in M Office, found the victim, and found whether there is any doubt about O by searching the Internet and searching the Internet, and it is difficult to believe that it is true without objective and reasonable supporting materials.