A. misunderstanding of the legal principles 1) The summary of the content of the Packet written in the judgment of the Defendant’s demonstration is that the victim C Co. received money from ordinary people through an exaggerated advertisement on stem cells and did not have the effect of the stem cell operation, and thus does not constitute false facts, inasmuch as it is consistent with objective facts.

2) The above expressions expressed by the Defendant are nothing more than the Defendant’s opinion on the actions of the victim company. 3) The Defendant did not have the intent of defamation by publicly alleging false facts.

4) The Defendant’s demonstration for the public interest was conducted by one person, and the contents of the demonstration were believed to be true, and there was a reasonable reason to believe that it was unlawful.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion that the act does not constitute false facts, the court below stated that the defendant, after entering into a delegation contract with the victim company, which is a stem cell storage business entity, and the contract was terminated and the return was promised by the victim company after the termination of the contract, the defendant demanded the victim company to return expenses not legally responsible. The defendant stated that the victim company is "a person who has paid money to the victim" as stated in the Packet. The stem cell medical technology, which is the business sector of the victim company, is recognized as a new medical technology through the evaluation of the government's stability and effectiveness, and even if there are diverse symptoms showing the actual clinical effect, the defendant stated "uneffective stem cell (storage procedure)" as "a non-effective stem cell (k)" and according to the above facts, the defendant stated false facts inconsistent with the objective facts.

Since it is reasonable to see this part of the defendant's argument.