A. Since the Defendant: (a) requested the victim operating the Rotterdam company to conduct artificial surgery; (b) obtained an estimate consultation, actual measurement, and confirmation of detailed construction items; and (c) decided to conduct oral construction with the victim, it shall be deemed that the Rotterdam contract was established; (c) the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, which determined that the Rotterdam contract was not concluded between the Defendant and the victim.

B. As stated in the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not have any perception that the Defendant was false at the time when the Defendant written a letter (hereinafter “instant notice”) as indicated in the facts charged. Therefore, the crime of defamation by publicly alleging false facts under Article 70(2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the defendant was consulted at least five times with the victim's wife when he was aware of the company that will be responsible for the construction of the new complex around September 2010; (ii) the defendant was sent a text message to the victim that the F would not unilaterally conclude the contract for the artificial complex work one hour prior to the commitment time when he was committed to conclude the contract with the victim; and (iii) the defendant asked the victim whether he was English, how he was how he was the victim; (iv) the victim was unable to conclude the contract with the text message on the date of the contract; and (v) the victim was asked to the victim during the process of giving advice to the victim's attitude; and (v) the defendant was posted on September 13, 2010 and posted on September 14, 2010 and posted on September 13, 2014.