A. The notice posted by the Defendants misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (hereinafter “the notice of this case”) contains all actual facts, and thus, the Defendants did not indicate false facts.

The instant written public notice contains the Defendants’ assessment of the said days, and may be viewed as not per se a statement of fact.

Since Defendants recognized that they are for the public interest and posted the public notice of this case, illegality is dismissed.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which found the Defendants guilty of all the charges of this case.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (a fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of the legal principles and mistake of the Defendants and the defense counsel

A. In the crime of defamation as to whether a statement of fact is a statement of fact or an honorary statement of fact, the term “statement of fact” refers to a report or statement on a specific past or present fact in time and space, and the content of the statement can be proven by evidence. In determining whether a report or statement is a fact or an opinion, it shall be determined by taking into account the ordinary meaning and usage of the language, the possibility of proof, the context in which the given statement was used, the context in which the expression was used, and the social situation, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do17237, Sept. 2, 201). In light of the foregoing legal principles, the victim’s “D 8 or 9 complex (hereinafter “multi-family complex”) as indicated in the instant public notice and the instant construction cost, and thereby making it KRW 1500,000,000,000.