A. 1) Fact-misunderstanding 1) The Defendant’s statement in the banner and printed materials is all true, and even if there are facts different from some truth, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Defendant is true, and the Defendant committed the same act as the facts charged in the instant case for the public interest. Therefore, illegality is dismissed.

2) In the case of defamation on May 23, 2015, the public performance is not recognized since the Defendant posted a banner and removed the banner’s seat.

B. The lower court omitted judgment on the Defendant’s charge, which omitted the determination on ① the Defendant’s illegal dismissal of the Defendant, ② the fact in the process of selecting the controlled entity of this case, and omitted.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (one year of suspended sentence in April) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of fact, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the original trial, and the lower court rejected the judgment in detail.

Examining the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of mistake as to the facts alleged by the defendant.

In addition, there is no room for application of Article 310 of the Criminal Act to an act falling under the crime of defamation by a false statement of false facts (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2690, May 9, 2012, etc.). Thus, inasmuch as the Defendant’s alleged contents are false and there is no reasonable ground to believe that the Defendant is true, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s act is illegal as it concerns public interest.

2) Whether performance is recognized.