All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. Defendant (Violation of the Notarial Law, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of facts) 1) Defendant’s remarks as indicated in the judgment of the lower court in the debate on June 7, 2018 (hereinafter “instant remarks”).

(2) The statement of this case is merely an expression of opinion that points out the fact that the victim has lost fairness and fairness in performing public service as the B market, and cannot be deemed as a statement of specific facts against the victim. The statement of this case is merely an expression of opinion that points out that the victim has lost fairness and fairness in performing public service as the B market, and cannot be deemed as a statement of specific facts against the victim.

In particular, the court below rejected L's legal statement corresponding to the defendant's legal action, thereby violating the rules of evidence, and neglected the judgment on P and Z's statements.

3) Even if the instant remarks were false, there was no intention on the Defendant that such remarks were false, and there was no intention on the part of the Defendant to prevent the victim from winning an election. 4) The instant remarks were related to the public interest, and there was considerable reason to believe that they were true, and such illegality is dismissed.

B. It is unfair that the prosecutor (e.g., a fine of three million won) imposed on the accused is too unhued.

2. Judgment on the defendant's violation of the rules of evidence, misapprehension of legal principles, and mistake of facts

A. The lower court determined as to whether the instant speech constitutes a factual publication or a timely statement, and determined the lower court: (1) the content that “The dub of the instant speech intentionally excluded the business operated by F from the business ordered by B on the ground that F was in a pro rata relationship with the Defendant, and (b) died due to stress caused thereby.”