A. The Defendant did not actually lead the preparation of the instant official document.

B. The Defendant’s act of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is an act for the public interest and thus dismissed by Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of fact, the fact that the Defendant received a report from G and I on the process of preparing the instant official inquiry, its contents, etc., and that the Defendant affixed his official seal on the official document while approving the final dispatch.

Therefore, it was found that the defendant did not actually prepare the above official questioning as alleged by the defendant.

Even if the Defendant knew of the contents of the official questioning, and the sending of such official questioning was finally decided by the Defendant, and when taking account of the fact that the name of the preparation of the official questioning of this case is the Defendant, it may sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant had G prepare the official questioning of this case and sent it to the Korean Federation of Natural Arts and Culture Organizations, an incorporated association, etc., as stated in the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles, the term "the time when the alleged facts relate solely to the public interest" in Article 310 of the Criminal Act refers to the public interest when objectively viewed the alleged facts, and an actor should also indicate the facts for the public interest subjectively. It includes not only the public interest of the State, society, and other general public, but also the interest and interest of a specific social group or its entire members. Whether the alleged facts constitute the public interest or not is related to the stated facts, shall be considered in light of all the circumstances concerning the expression itself, such as the content and nature of the alleged facts, the scope of the counter-party to which the publication of the facts was made, and the method of expression.