Part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

A. A. Fines 5,00,000, Defendant B.

A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles through newspapers, Internet newspapers, brochuress, etc., the Defendants promulgated a false complaint stating that they conducted J, K, and M, etc., and that “B and K” were “L is a corporate bond manager.” ② The J and K published a false complaint that “O provided money and valuables in the course of acquiring I’s business rights.” ③ The J and K published a false complaint that “I’s personnel from the outside of the outside of the outside of the outside of the outside of the outside of the outside of the Republic of Korea were determined as I’s president.” ④ H and K were reappointed to the president and participated in the consortium. ④ K did not find in the Republic of Korea the doctor’s degree thesis of M. ⑤ There was no evidence to prove that M was “the so-called “Sbook” voluntarily made a recording. 7 M’s speech was not a false fact.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the above facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B) Even if the facts mentioned in the preceding paragraph are false, the Defendants believed that the facts mentioned in the preceding paragraph were not false, and there were reasonable grounds to believe such facts, so the Defendants did not have any criminal intent as to the statement of false facts. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the Defendants’ criminal intent, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. C) Furthermore, the lower court delayed the opening of the I in such a way as misunderstanding of facts, and the Defendants delayed the opening of the I in the manner as to the distribution of false rumors. The Defendants expressed the facts described in the preceding paragraph in the facts charged in newspapers, online newspapers, brochuress, etc. for the purpose of informing the Defendants of the interference with the opening of the country where the J is self-fash and the illegality of the delay in the opening of the country was caused, and there was no purpose of slandering the Defendants.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which recognized the fact that the defendants committed the act as described in the facts charged with the purpose of slandering the facts.