A. The Defendant believed that the victim embezzled approximately KRW 12 million, and there were reasonable grounds to believe that the Defendant was true.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds that the Defendant asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part of this part of the judgment below, following the summary of the evidence of the judgment.

B. 1) In light of the relevant legal principles and the balance of conflicting demands such as the protection of an individual’s reputation as a personal right and the freedom of expression or the freedom of press and the guarantee of freedom of press, the determination of whether the actor believed the alleged fact to be true and where there exist reasonable grounds to believe the alleged fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do3160, Jun. 22, 1993). Furthermore, the determination of whether there are reasonable grounds to believe the alleged fact to be true should be made in light of the following circumstances in light of the legal principles: (a) whether the actor has conducted adequate and sufficient investigation to verify the authenticity of the alleged fact; (b) whether the authenticity thereof is supported by objective and reasonable materials or reasonable grounds; and (c) whether the victim has duly adopted the evidence of this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do847, Dec. 13, 2012).