misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is an expression of opinion that is not a publication of fact.

The Defendant did not mention that “I received sexual intercourse” in the Kakao Stockholm bulletin (hereinafter “the instant bulletin”) on May 27, 2014, as indicated in the separate sheet, and did not state the title of the instant bulletin as “the suspicion of sexual traffic.”

The Defendant, as a defense counsel of the previous criminal case regarding I’s sexual intercourse, pointed out the suspicions and problems of the investigation process and trial process of the previous case committed in the course of the lawsuit, and only recommended the right holder to visit the Defendant’s website to directly report and determine the materials.

This is clearly expressed in the context of the posting of this case.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that it was reasonable to view that the Defendant’s mistake of the fact that, upon finding materials posted on the Defendant’s website, the Defendant stated the title of the instant bulletin as “the suspicion of sexual traffic,” and that only part of the instant bulletin written by the Defendant was separated, and that the Defendant stated the false fact that “I would have engaged in sexual traffic, regardless of the outcome of the previous case’s trial.”

The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the “public announcement of facts” and “an expression of opinion” in the crime of publishing false facts.

The Supreme Court’s determination as to whether there was a “sexual contact” cannot be said to be false.

In this case’s notice, the Defendant written a letter stating that “The Supreme Court’s determination on whether there was a “sexual intercourse” is not a matter of fact.”

However, the court below held that this case’s notice is a previous case.