A. The court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, or by misunderstanding of legal principles, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

(1) The Defendant did not prove that the content of the printed article sent by e-mail as indicated in the lower judgment (hereinafter “instant printed article”) is false, and the Defendant was unaware of the content of the instant printed article.

(2) There was no attempt to defame the victims.

(3) Since the Defendant believed that the content of the instant printed article is true and sent e-mail for the public interest, illegality is dismissed pursuant to Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

B. The judgment of the court below on the imposition of an unreasonable sentencing (three million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) In determining whether the alleged facts are false or not in the crime of defamation by a statement of false facts under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, the determination of whether the alleged facts are false or not, in light of the overall purport of the alleged facts, can not be viewed as false if there is a difference between the truth and the truth or a somewhat exaggerated expression in light of the overall purport of the alleged facts, but if the important part is not consistent with the objective facts, it should be viewed as false.

Furthermore, it is difficult to determine whether an actor knows that the matter is false or not from the outside due to its nature, by taking into account various objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s educational background, career, social status, process of publication, timing of publication, and anticipated ripple effect, based on the contents and the content of the published fact, the existence and content of the explanatory material, and the source and awareness of the fact revealed by the Defendant. The intention of the crime is not only conclusive intention but also result.