A. The Defendant’s mistake of fact (as to defamation against victim D) cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant made a false statement about victim D through an appeal or text message, and the Defendant did not recognize that it was false, and the Defendant made and distributed an appeal or text message as indicated in the instant facts charged without recognizing that it was false.

B. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, as it did each of the instant acts for the public interest of the divided owners B, is dismissed.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below which is unfair in sentencing (five million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts: (a) the victim D’s mother F was KRW 150 million in the process of the redevelopment of a commercial building owned by the redevelopment association; (b) as F was unable to repay the above relocation expenses, the redevelopment association requested a voluntary auction procedure against F’s commercial building (B building G) and recovered KRW 89 million in the amount; and (c) F was also holding a portion of the public land in the building B other than the above commercial building and the redevelopment association established a collateral security against the said portion; (d) the Defendant, without making any effort to confirm the facts clearly through the redevelopment association; and (e) prepared and distributed the text and text as described in the facts charged of this case and the message based on only the text of this case, without making any effort to find the facts clearly; and (e) the Defendant’s assertion that there was an error of law by misapprehending the facts that could have affected the conclusion of the judgment, as otherwise alleged in the facts charged of this case.

subsection (b) of this section.

B. Legal principles are erroneous.