The part of the judgment of the court below in the 11th 13th 13th "criminal facts" shall be corrected to "Notwithstanding the forum, the defendant on December 3, 2001" to "the defendant, despite the forum, on December 3, 2007."

For the following reasons, the Defendant asserts that the lower judgment erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

A. The Defendant’s remarks while making telephone conversations with Nonindicted 2 reporters as stated in the facts charged in the judgment of the court below does not constitute a public announcement act under Article 250(2) of the Public Official Election Act, and the Defendant did not have any awareness of the publishing act.

B. The content of the Defendant’s statement as stated in the facts charged in the part on “Article 2-A” as stated in the judgment below is merely an abstract interpretation of Non-Indicted 3’s intent to deliberate by Non-Indicted 2, rather than an announcement of facts. Thus, the elements of Article 250(2) of the Public Official Election Act are not satisfied

C. The Defendant’s act of speaking as stated in the facts charged in the part concerning “No. 2-A” and “No. 2-D” as stated in the judgment below does not constitute a public announcement of the facts pertaining to candidates, and thus does not meet the elements of Article 250(2) of the Public Official Election Act.

D. There is no proof as to the fact that the contents published by the Defendant are consistent with the truth, and the remainder is false.

E. The Defendant did not have awareness of the fact that the content published was false, and there was a considerable reason to believe that the content published by the Defendant was true, and thus, the Defendant cannot be punished as unlawful.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Whether Article 2-2 of the judgment of the court below constitutes an act of publication and whether the defendant is aware of such part

"Publication", which is the form of an act under Article 250 (2) of the Public Official Election Act, means informing an unspecified or unspecified person of false facts, regardless of the means or method thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do5279, Nov. 28, 2003, etc.). However, even if a fact is discovered against an individual, if there is a possibility of spreading it to an unspecified or unspecified person, this requirement is satisfied (see Supreme Court Decisions 99Do3930, Dec. 10, 199; 98Do1992, Sept. 22, 199).

According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below and the court below, it is acknowledged that at the time of the instant case, the Defendant engaged in the same story as that stated in this part of the facts charged, but on the other hand, the Defendant was in the position of leading and investigating Nonindicted 2, which was composed of around November 2007, as the co-head of the countermeasures group for ascertaining the truth of the Crumbling Incident (hereinafter “the countermeasures group”), and who was dispatched from the 17th presidential election to the 17th presidential candidate of Hanra, Lee Jong-bak was not only the co-offender of the crime, such as the manipulation of the share price of Nonindicted 4, the embezzlement of the funds of Nonindicted 4, and the embezzlement of the funds of Nonindicted 5, as well as the fact that Nonindicted 2, who was the actual owner of Nonindicted 6 and Nonindicted 5, was not aware of large amount of funds, and that the Defendant’s act was highly likely to be subject to the disclosure of the reported part of this case’s news report and its content to the Defendant’s 7th executive reasons stated otherwise.

B. Whether Article 2(1) of the judgment below constitutes a statement of fact

In the crime of publishing false facts under Article 250 (2) of the Public Official Election Act, false facts are inconsistent with the truth and are sufficient enough to have the elector correct judgment on candidates. However, if a statement is merely an expression of opinion with simple value judgment or evaluation, it does not constitute the mere expression of opinion. In distinguishing between whether a statement is a true statement or an expression of opinion, the ordinary meaning and usage of language, the context in which the expression in question is used, the possibility of proof, and the social situation in which the expression was made, and the overall impression given to the elector should be determined based on the overall impression given to the elector (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2001Do6292, Nov. 13, 2002; Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6138, Feb. 20, 2003; Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6138, Feb. 20, 200).

According to the aforementioned evidence, the Defendant, as indicated in this part of the facts charged, directly made statements to Nonindicted Party 2, as stated in this part of the facts charged, (i) stated that the part constituting the facts charged was cited and reported directly by the Defendant; and (ii) the Defendant’s answer to Nonindicted Party 2’s questions only by using Nonindicted Party 2’s statement as an article that “I would have been able to answer” (the third trial date, two investigative records, and 890 pages) is different from the Defendant’s assertion that there was passive response to Nonindicted Party 2’s questioning. However, there is no room to view that the Defendant’s statement as to this part of the facts charged was a form of expressing the Defendant’s opinion on the reason for resignation of Nonindicted Party 3’s attorney-at-law, and that there was no reason to view that the Defendant’s statement was an expression of his defense counsel’s participation in this part of the facts charged, and that there was no evidence to prove that the Defendant had been an attorney-at-law’s participation in this part of the facts charged.”

C. Whether Article 2-1(a) and Article 2-2(d) of the decision of the court below is a public announcement of “fact concerning a candidate”

Article 250 (2) of the Public Official Election Act provides that "the facts about candidates" as stated in Article 250 (2) include not only facts about candidates themselves, but also indirect facts related to candidates, and if their publication interferes with the election of candidates, it constitutes facts about candidates (Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8368 Decided March 15, 2007). According to the above evidence, the contents of "Article 2-1 (a)" and "Article 2-2 (d)" as stated in the judgment of the court below do not directly mention the candidate's opinion or prosecutor's office about the reason for resignation of non-indicted 3 attorneys, as alleged by the defendant, although there are grounds that the defendant's opinion or prosecutor's office about the reason for the resignation of the candidates in this case would not be fair and open to the public prosecutor's office's opinion that it constitutes "the part concerning the election of non-indicted 2" and "the defendant's opinion that it would interfere with the election of non-indicted 5" in this part of the public official election Act.

D. Whether the contents of the instant publication are consistent with the truth, and there is no evidence of falsity

(1) Facts of recognition

In light of the records, the following facts may be recognized in light of the comprehensive and review of various evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below and the court below.

(A) Around April 27, 1999, Non-Indicted 1 established a company "non-Indicted 7 Co., Ltd.," and continued to conduct a stock investment-related business. On October 9, 1999, Non-Indicted 1 changed its trade name into "non-Indicted 5 Co., Ltd.," and completed the registration of investment advisory business and discretionary investment business with the Financial Supervisory Service on November 16, 199, and operated investment advisory business, etc. (the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Da1408, 2008 Gohap606, etc., which was submitted by the prosecutor at the trial).

(B) On January 2, 200, the candidate for Lee Jae-bak entered into an oral agreement with Nonindicted Co. 8, a software developer for online financial business, to carry on a club business for the comprehensive financial business based on the Internet, and first, he established Nonindicted Co. 1, a software developer on February 18, 200 (the foregoing judgment, etc.) and then resigned from the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 8 as of April 18, 2001 (Evidence 2,634 pages), and the candidate for Lee Jae-bak established a corporation of Nonindicted Co. 9 along with Nonindicted Co. 1 on February 2, 2001 (Evidence 2,741 pages), and the candidate for Lee Jong-bak and 10 were registered as the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 9 (Evidence 1, 215 pages).

(C) Around February 2001, Nonindicted Co. 11, which invested in Nonindicted Co. 5, discovered the forgery of Nonindicted Co. 5’s investment advisory report, reported it to the Financial Supervisory Service, and conducted a field inspection on Nonindicted Co. 5 in the Financial Supervisory Service from March 2, 2001 to March 13, 2001 (the foregoing judgment, etc.). As a result, there was a lack of operating professionals, Nonindicted Co. 5’s embezzlement of funds, and false preparation of investment reports, etc., and the Financial Supervisory Commission taken measures to revoke the registration of investment advisory business of Nonindicted Co. 5 around April 27, 2001 (Evidence No. 185 pages of evidence record).

(D) When the return of the investment amount has been delayed, Nonindicted Co. 12, who invested in Nonindicted Co. 5, filed a complaint against Nonindicted Co. 1 and a candidate for e-mail, etc. on October 30, 201, and Nonindicted Co. 1, who was arrested to the prosecution on December 6, 2001, entered into an agreement with Nonindicted Co. 12 and went back to the United States on December 20, 201 upon release. The prosecutor issued a disposition of non-indicted 1 on suspicion of fraud against the candidate for e-mail of Nonindicted Co. 12, who was arrested to the prosecution on December 20, 201 (the above judgment, etc.).

(E) After the escape of Nonindicted Party 1, the prosecution operated the share price of Nonindicted Company 4 by the Financial Supervisory Service and the prosecutor's own investigation, embezzled the above company's funds amounting to 36 billion won, and confirmed the charge of forging the documents. Accordingly, the prosecution ordered the suspension of prosecution against Nonindicted Party 1. On January 17, 2004, upon the Ministry of Justice's request for extradition against Nonindicted Party 1 to the United States, Nonindicted Party 1 was arrested by the investigation agency of the United States on May 27, 2005 but delayed repatriation of personal protection petition to Korea, and Nonindicted Party 1 withdrawn the petition for personal protection on October 3, 2007 to Korea on November 16, 2007, and conducted the investigation of this case's evidence and evidence after obtaining the warrant of detention against Nonindicted Party 1 from the court of Justice around that time.

(F) On the other hand, in the 2007 presidential election, the candidate for Lee Jong-young started to raise the suspicion of this case against the candidate for Lee Jong-young in the 17th presidential election, which was implemented on December 19, 2007, and in some media and political districts, some of the candidates for Lee Jong-young began to raise the suspicion against the candidate for Lee Jong-young. In particular, the National Assembly members, who belong to the defendant, continued to raise the suspicion against the candidate for Lee Jong-young through the Government questioning of the National Assembly and the standing committee activities, etc., and the question of the suspicion of this case was raised during the 17th presidential election for the election of the candidate for the 17th presidential election of Han-Ba, and the candidate for Lee Jong-young was elected as the candidate for the 17th presidential election of Han-ri as of August 19, 2007 (Evidence evidence record 8 or 10 rights, etc.).

(G) On October 2007, upon which Nonindicted Party 1 was confirmed to be repatriated in Korea, the National Assembly members belonging to the Democratic Party to which the Defendant belongs continuously raised the suspicion of this case against the candidate for the Lee Jae-gam elected as the candidate for the President of Hanna Party, and tried to become aware that there is a problem of the morality of the candidate for Lee Jae-gam in the course of making a full examination. After the repatriation of Nonindicted Party 1, based on the materials obtained in the existing press report or the lawsuit related to Nonindicted Party 1, in the U.S., and the information obtained through the informant, such as the materials and the press related persons, etc., he raised the suspicion related to the candidate for Lee Jae-gam through the press conference. The Democratic Party constituted the instant countermeasure group to find out the suspicion of this case around November 2007, and the Defendant was jointly working as the head of the countermeasures group (Evidence evidence record 8, right 9, etc.).

(h) From November 2007 to December 2007, the time when the Defendant, as the co-chairperson of the instant countermeasures group, published the same content as the indicated in the instant facts charged, the controversy between the Hanna Party and the Democratic Party on the suspicion of the instant candidate for Lee Jae-gy as before the 17th presidential election, has emerged as an important election issue, and the interest of the elector was raised (Evidence 8 rights, nine rights, etc.).

(i) In Hanna Party, including the candidate himself, expressed his opinion that the suspicion of this case is different from the fact about the suspicion of this case between the candidate and Nonindicted Party 1 on several occasions through the news report materials and the blishing of his representative prior to the publication of this case (Evidence 8, etc.).

(j) In addition, as a result of the investigation conducted by the FSC in 2001 and the prosecutor's investigation conducted on the instant suspicion, the candidate for Embbling concluded that he was not related to Nonindicted 1's above criminal charges. Such investigation results, etc., on June 20, 2007, the National Assembly reported the pending issues of Nonindicted 5 Co., Ltd. or on October 25, 2007, and the Financial Supervisory Commission Chairperson and its working-level officer did not have a relation to the Embry candidate. On June 11, 2007, the Minister of Justice respondeded to the purport that he did not confirm the relevance with the Embrying candidate from the National Assembly member's interpellation to the investigation conducted from the Government questioning of the National Assembly to the time (the minutes of October 25, 2007) (Evidence, etc.).

(k) Meanwhile, on April 17, 2008, Nonindicted 1 embezzled the company funds of Nonindicted 4 and was detained on charges of forging the market price adjustment of the said company’s share price and forging private documents, etc., and was convicted by the Seoul Central District Court (Seoul Central District Court 2007Gohap1408). In addition, Nonindicted 1 forged a sales contract of shares with the purport that the e-mail candidate sells 610,000 shares (10%) of Nonindicted 5’s stock to Nonindicted 8, and subsequently convicted Nonindicted 13 on November 20, 207, through Non-Indicted 13, the said sales contract was suspected of publishing false facts by having the e-mail candidate hold the e-mail company 5, and was convicted on July 208 (206, 2008) (hereinafter referred to as the above judgment).

(l) According to the special prosecutor’s investigation conducted on February 21, 2008 for “the truth-finding on the charge of committing a crime, such as the manipulation of a candidate for the President of the Korea-Japan president,” the candidate announced that there was no fact that he participated or conspired in Nonindicted 4’s stock price manipulation and the crime of embezzlement of company funds while operating Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 5 Company as a partnership business (Evidence No. 2, No. 581). The specific reasons are as follows.

① The share price manipulation and money laundering for Nonindicted Co. 4

(1) In the instant case, Nonindicted Co. 1 collected shares of Nonindicted Co. 4 from December 5, 2000 to Nonindicted Co. 5, and acquired management rights in the name of 3 companies, including Nonindicted Co. 14, around February 26, 2001; and in the process, the share price manipulation was confirmed in order to reduce expenses for acquiring management rights;

(C) From May 24, 2001 to December 13, 2001, the (i) capital increase of KRW 38.7 billion over five occasions, (ii) secured a large quantity of new shares through Nonindicted Incorporated Company 15, etc. established overseas by Nonindicted 1 in a third-party distribution method, (iii) secured a large quantity of new shares in order to prevent dilution of the shares of Nonindicted Incorporated Company 4, which are leaked in the course of selling the shares, and (iv) confirmed that the price manipulation was made in order to prevent dilution of the shares of Nonindicted Incorporated Company 4, which are leaked in large quantity,

As a result, Nonindicted Co. 14, etc. used to acquire the management right or to increase new shares, it was confirmed that the right to withdraw the company’s deposit account was Nonindicted Co. 1 and 16, and eventually concluded that Nonindicted Co. 4’s stock price manipulation was an independent crime committed by Nonindicted Co. 1, and that there was no fact that the candidate did not participate in it.

② As to the embezzlement of Nonindicted Co. 4’s funds

The Defendant voluntarily withdrawn KRW 31.9 billion from Nonindicted Co. 4’s funds, and used KRW 16.5 billion as a refund for Nonindicted Co. 5’s investment funds, and confirmed that Nonindicted Co. 1 transferred KRW 15.4 billion to Nonindicted Co. 1’s domestic account, Nonindicted Co. 1, a foreign pester, etc. established by Nonindicted Co. 1, and used it in the stock price manipulation of Nonindicted Co. 4, and remitted it to Nonindicted Co. 14, etc.’s foreign account;

Sub-indicted 4 Company’s embezzlement is a crime committed independently by Nonindicted 1 while neglecting and managing the funds account of Nonindicted Co. 4 Company, and concluded that the candidate for e-mail was either involved in the embezzlement or sharing some of the profits from embezzlement.

③ Related to the sales price of shares by Nonindicted Co. 4

In selling the shares of Nonindicted Co. 4, Nonindicted Co. 1 concluded that Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 16 carried out total 2,4266,00 of the U.S. accounts, including Nonindicted Co. 14, where he and Nonindicted Co. 16 are the account holder, through an account of Nonindicted Co. 17, etc., as he established.

④ In the United States, the right to preserve the confiscation of Non-Indicted 1’s property

As to Nonindicted Party 1’s funds for the U.S. property, Nonindicted Party 1’s real estate owned by Nonindicted Party 1 and deposits worth KRW 17490,00,00, which were preserved for confiscation in the U.S. Federal Prosecutor’s Office, concluded that Nonindicted Party 1 carried out Nonindicted Party 4’s corporate funds embezzlement and sales price of Nonindicted Party 4’s stocks overseas.

⑤ Regarding the establishment and ownership of Nonindicted Co. 5

The Defendant: (a) Nonindicted Co. 1, along with Nonindicted Co. 18, established Nonindicted Co. 5’s capital amounting to KRW 50 million on April 27, 1999; (b) was invested in KRW 3 billion from Nonindicted Co. 26 on September 24, 199; and (c) Nonindicted Co. 1, from February 24, 200 to January 21, 201, purchased all shares in Nonindicted Co. 26’s possession in the name of Nonindicted Co. 19 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 19; (c) was confirmed that Nonindicted Co. 19 owned 10%; and (d) Nonindicted Co. 1 also recognized that he is the de facto owner of Nonindicted Co. 19;

(2) On February 23, 200, Non-Indicted 1 purchased Non-Indicted 1’s equity shares in Non-Indicted 5’s stock company on February 24, 200 (the first), KRW 1.6 billion on March 9, 200 (the second), and KRW 15 million on January 21, 2001 (the third). The source of the first and second purchase fund was used in part of KRW 5 billion invested from Non-Indicted 20 on February 23, 200, and the source of the third purchase fund was deposited from Non-Indicted 5’s foreign exchange account. The first deposit was made on April 27, 200 when Non-Indicted 6’s funds were deposited into Non-Indicted 5’s stock company.

6) As to the return of investment and investment in Nonindicted Co. 5

The Defendant: (a) attracted Nonindicted Co. 5’s investment in KRW 71.2 billion from investors, including Nonindicted Co. 11; (b) solicited the investment of Nonindicted Co. 21 (40 million) and Nonindicted Co. 22 (30 million) from among the investors; and (c) the remaining investors were confirmed to have been attracting investment by Nonindicted Co. 23, 24, etc., who are the seat of Nonindicted Co. 1 or Nonindicted Co. 1; and

(C) Although Nonindicted 1 redeemed and returned the investment funds that he subscribed to the fund in the name of investors, it was confirmed that Nonindicted Co. 5 and Nonindicted Co. 12, etc., who received the investment trust agreement, concluded the investment trust agreement with Nonindicted Co. 5 and returned the funds of Nonindicted Co. 4 by using the funds of Nonindicted Co. 4, and concluded that there was no fact that the e-mail candidate participated in the return of investment

(7) Other harshness related thereto

(1) On October 17, 2000, relating to ○○ Mann Jin.

On October 17, 200, the candidate for Lee Jong-dae stated that “the candidate started Nonindicted Co. 5’s business” at the ○ Many of ○ Man-gu, 2000, despite the fact that he stated, he did not directly prove that the candidate was involved in the stock price manipulation of Nonindicted Co. 4 and the embezzlement of the company’s funds under the agreement with Nonindicted Co. 1, who was in operation of Nonindicted Co. 5, when he was subject to preliminary permission for securities business, he did not make the said remarks that he attempted to promote Nonindicted Co. 1, who was in operation of Nonindicted Co. 5, and that he was not the actual owner of Nonindicted Co. 5. In order to establish and operate Nonindicted Co. 5, the fact that Nonindicted Co. 1 was confirmed with Nonindicted Co. 5’s investment funds. Accordingly, it concluded that the candidate for Lee Jong-dae did not directly prove that he participated in the stock price manipulation of Nonindicted Co. 4 and the embezzlement of the company’s funds.

(C) As to Non-Indicted 25’s assertion that he was ordered on May 30, 201

In relation to the statement that at the time of May 30, 201, the candidate for Lee Jae-bak made a statement that he did not use his name cards after being separated from Nonindicted Party 1, Nonindicted Party 25 concluded that even if Nonindicted Party 25 visited △△ building and received the name cards from the candidate for Lee Jae-bak and entered the facts in his pocket book, it does not constitute a direct evidence that the candidate for Lee Jong-bak did not participate in the stock price manipulation and corporate embezzlement of Nonindicted Party 4.

Category caused by so-called a so-called Korean side agreement

Nonindicted 1 asserted that Nonindicted 1 affixed the seal on February 21, 2001 on the Korean side agreement, which is one year after February 21, 2000, stating that “The 6.1 million shares of Nonindicted Co. 5 are sold in KRW 4.9 billion,” but at the time of “ February 21, 2000,” which is the date of preparation under the said share sale and purchase agreement, Nonindicted 26 Co. 5’s shares were owned by Nonindicted Co. 26 Co. 5’s shares at KRW 3 billion, and Nonindicted 1 was confirmed to have purchased all shares of Nonindicted Co. 26 Co. 5’s shares in the name of Nonindicted Co. 19 from February 24, 200 to January 21, 201. In light of the fact that Nonindicted 1 also held that there was no actual payment for KRW 4.9 billion as the purchase price in the above contract.

Fshion 19 billion won invested by Nonindicted Incorporated 6 in Nonindicted Incorporated 5

From April 27, 200 to December 30, 200, Nonindicted Co. 6 remitted the amount of KRW 19 billion to Nonindicted Co. 5’s account at six times. However, on December 4, 2001, only the amount of KRW 5 billion was recovered on December 4, 2001, and the remainder of KRW 14 billion was not recovered. Nonindicted Co. 5’s request for investment by visiting Nonindicted Co. 27, 13, and 1, etc. at several times to Nonindicted Co. 6 for the explanation of the profit transaction, and upon the resolution of the board of directors at Nonindicted Co. 6, it was recognized that the contract for investment was drafted, and Nonindicted Co. 1 continued to submit a return on profit to Nonindicted Co. 6’s account. In light of the fact that Nonindicted Co. 5’s investment in Nonindicted Co. 5’s funds was certain, as Nonindicted Co. 1’s assertion, there was no evidence that it was put into operation of Nonindicted Co. 5 and 8’s funds.

Y YUGE YY

On June 24, 200, the fact that “Non-Indicted 8 owns 100% of the shares of Non-Indicted 5 Stock Investment Advisory Co., Ltd.” was written in the course of investing KRW 500 million in Nonindicted Co. 8 at △ Bank. However, it is concluded that the person in charge of △ Bank believed that “Non-Indicted 8 owns all the shares of Non-Indicted 5 Co. 5, which raise high profits by managing a hedge fund of KRW 70 billion” of Non-Indicted 1, and that it was decided to enter into put option contract and invest KRW 500 million, it was confirmed to have prepared an internal report without proper verification. However, although the articles of incorporation of Non-Indicted 5’s company was submitted in the course of investment, it is stated as “non-Indicted 5’s promoters” even if it is not a candidate for marbling, and it cannot be deemed that there was a special resolution for the amendment of the articles of incorporation.

(2) Determination

In the crime of publishing false facts under Article 250 (2) of the Public Official Election Act, the person who asserts that there is no suspicion against the person who asserts that there is no suspicion shall be a burden of presenting supporting materials to the effect that the existence of such a fact is acceptable, and the prosecutor may prove the falsity by means of impeachment of the credibility of the materials presented. In this case, the mere presentation of the materials to be presented is insufficient in light of the above legal principles, and at least the proof of the prosecutor about the falsity is sufficient, and the proof of the materials to be presented should be made to the extent that the prosecutor's activity to prove the falsity is practically feasible. In the absence of such presentation or impeachment of the credibility of the materials presented, the materials to be presented should be held liable for the publication of false facts (Supreme Court Decision 2005Do2627 delivered on July 22, 2005).

(A) Part 2-A of the decision of the court below

According to the aforementioned evidence, Nonindicted 3’s attorney, who was appointed as Nonindicted 1’s defense counsel at the time of repatriation in Korea, was aware of the reasons for his resignation in Korea by the lower court and the prosecutor’s office, but at the time of the 17th presidential election, caused difficulties in reviewing legal issues and collecting evidence (the trial record 421 pages). It was not a situation in which it is possible to determine which the candidate could be detained or prosecuted with respect to the suspicion of this case, or in which case he had no relation with Nonindicted 5’s defense counsel (the trial record 423 pages, 425 pages), and the Defendant did not know that the Defendant was a defense counsel at the time of the appointment of Nonindicted 1’s defense counsel and did not have a relation with his resignation, and that there was no fact that the Defendant made a call or made a call (the trial record 426 pages), and that there was no objective reason that the Defendant already made a false statement by Nonindicted 3, 425’s defense counsel’s attorney’s resignation in Korea (the trial record 425th).

(B) Article 2-2(b) of the decision of the court below

According to the above evidence, on May 3, 2001, the amount in the account for securities issued by Non-Indicted 28 was deposited into a new bank account (Account Number 1 omitted) in the name of “Non-Indicted 10 Non-Indicted 9 Non-Indicted 9 Stock Company.” (Evidence Record 1, 189 pages, 19 pages, 198 pages). The money was deposited into an account in the name of Non-Indicted 31 Stock Company (Account Number 2 omitted) opened at the above new bank account (Account Number 191 pages), and on May 28, 2001, the fact that the money was deposited into the foreign bank account (Account Number 3 omitted) of Non-Indicted 9 Stock Company (Evidence No. 1, 214 pages) is recognized.

However, unlike the assertion of this part of the publication of this case, the data related to the account in the name of Nonindicted 10 (the 94 pages of the trial record) and the statement of Nonindicted 30 of the court below (the 282 pages of the trial record) by Nonindicted 10 (the 105 pages of the trial record), etc. can be acknowledged that money was deposited from the above new bank (the 105 pages of the trial record) account in the name of Nonindicted 10 to the account in the name of Nonindicted 31, etc. in the name of Nonindicted 30, not from the 10 personal name of Nonindicted 10, and there is no evidence suggesting that the above data was irrelevant to the suspicion of this case prior to the publication of this case, and that Nonindicted 10 personally lent money to Nonindicted 31, the Defendant’s account in the name of Nonindicted 31, which was the Defendant’s private company and the 10th of the Seoul High Court (the 194th page of the trial record) and that Nonindicted 31, the Defendant was aware of the aforementioned facts that the Defendant used the Defendant’s 31 and the Defendant.

On the other hand, the facts revealed that the funds were deposited and withdrawn from the above new bank account, etc. with Nonindicted Co. 31, even though they were objectively true, this part of the Defendant’s publication did not merely mention the fact that the funds were transferred from the above new bank account as seen above, but also borrowed money by Nonindicted Co. 31, a corporation that Nonindicted 10 received money from his own personal account and transferred it to the account of Nonindicted Co. 31, a corporation that Nonindicted 1 mobilized in the stock price manipulation. The assertion that Nonindicted Co. 1 made a decision after April 2001 is false, and that there was a false statement that Nonindicted Co. 31, who was mobilized for Nonindicted Co. 1’s stock price manipulation, was unaware of the existence of Nonindicted Co. 31, who was mobilized for Nonindicted Co. 1’s stock price manipulation. Thus, the entire contents of the publication made by the Defendant do not coincide with the objective facts. Thus, considering the overall contents of the publication made in this part of this case are also false.

(C) As to Article 2(3) of the Judgment of the court below

According to the above evidence, on July 23, 2001, issued by Nonindicted Co. 8 on July 23, 2001, the tax invoice on the expenses incurred in restoring office of Nonindicted Co. 5 and the tax invoice on July 21, 2001 issued by the middle branch of Nonindicted Co. 34, which was entered as the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 8 (the trial record 138 pages, 139 pages), Nonindicted Co. 5, 8, and 9 together with the name of Nonindicted Co. 5, Nonindicted Co. 10 (the trial record 134 pages), the fact that Nonindicted Co. 10 was entered as the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 33’s office and the tax invoice on July 21, 201, which was entered as the name of the vice branch of Nonindicted Co. 34, which was recorded as the name of Nonindicted Co. 5’s office and the name of the vice branch of Nonindicted Co. 14, respectively, and the fact that Nonindicted Co. 5105’s. 16 of the trial record.

However, according to the above evidence, each tax invoice was prepared in the name of Nonindicted Co. 8, which is deemed to have been engaged in the business with Nonindicted Co. 1, 5, and only after April 18, 2001, which was alleged that the issue date of Nonindicted Co. 1 was different from that of Nonindicted Co. 3. Nonindicted Co. 1, 30, the Defendant testified at the lower court to the effect that the tax invoice was issued under the name of Nonindicted Co. 32 Co. 1, 4, and Nonindicted Co. 1, 36 of the branch office of Nonindicted Co. 34 did not know the fact that Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 3 was not in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1, 5, and that the Defendant was in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1, 7, and that the Defendant was in fact in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1, 401, and that there was no further information on the Defendant’s entry of Nonindicted Co. 1, 617).

If the facts are different, the defendant's assertion that this part of the publication made with the non-indicted 1 after April 18, 2001 was 10% false, and it appears that the principal contents of the candidate's assertion that the candidate was involved in the business of the non-indicted 5 corporation through the non-indicted 10, the part of the publication made by the defendant also constitutes a false fact, and the defendant is liable for the publication of the false facts.

(D) Part 2-D (D) of the decision of the court below

According to the above evidence at the prosecutor's office on December 5, 2007, when the defendant announced the investigation results of "the stock price manipulation, etc. of Non-Indicted 4 Co. 5", it is acknowledged that the defendant disclosed only the part of Non-Indicted 1's part of the joint signature (Evidence 1, 30 pages, hereinafter "Membo A") to the effect that "non-Indicted 5 owns 10% non-Indicted 1" among the joints referred to in this part of the contents of the publication, "non-Indicted 5 Co. 5" (Evidence 1, 30 pages, hereinafter "the joints of Non-Indicted 5"). However, according to the above evidence, Non-Indicted 1 did not submit to the prosecutor's office one copy of the joints (Evidence 1, 33 pages, hereinafter "the joints of Non-Indicted 6") to the effect that Non-Indicted 30 Co. 1's additional evidence was not prepared and confirmed by Non-Indicted 31's assistant to the above facts.

Therefore, if there is a factual relation, the defendant's Memo-Ba, which was presented by the prosecutor, made the contents of the investigation on December 5, 2007, that are completely conflicting with the Memo-Mamo-Ba, which was made public by the prosecutor while publishing the investigation results on December 5, 2007, was a content that could have a doubt as to its credibility. However, the defendant is liable for the publication of this part of this case on the grounds of the Memo-Ba, such as "The non-indicted 5 corporation owns at least 10% of the non-indicted 5 corporation", "The non-indicted 5 corporation is holding company at least 10% of the Memo-Ba, because the non-indicted 8 corporation owns 10% of the Memo-Ba, which was held as holding company." This is because the defendant indirectly criticizes the results of the investigation results of the prosecutor's office's office's announcement on December 5, 2007, and made it public.

E. The Defendant did not have awareness of the fact that the content of the instant case was false, and whether there was a considerable reason to believe that the Defendant was true

(1) Facts of recognition

In light of the records, the following facts may be recognized in light of the comprehensive and review of various evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below and the court below.

(A) While examining an accounting report submitted by Nonindicted Co. 6 to the U.S. court, the practitioners of the instant countermeasures group including Nonindicted Co. 30, who were assistant officers of the Defendant, had confirmed that the account holder of the new bank account number 1 omitted from the account number of the Korea Exchange Bank (Account No. 3 omitted) was “Nonindicted Co. 10 (Nonindicted Co. 9 Stock Brokerage)”. However, the Korea Exchange Bank confirmed that the account holder was “Nonindicted Co. 10 (Account No. 9 Stock Brokerage)”, but Nonindicted 30 did not confirm the account holder of the new bank account, for the purpose of ascertaining the deposit holder of the new bank account, Nonindicted 30 did not directly seek to the new bank’s office located in Seocho-gu Seoul High Court on November 28, 2007. At that time, Nonindicted Co. 3 did not mention Nonindicted Co. 1’s personal account at the time of the aforementioned new bank’s entry and withdrawal, and asked Nonindicted Co. 3’s employee of the court below as Nonindicted Co. 1’s new Account No. 28.

(B) In an accounting report submitted by Nonindicted Company 6 to the U.S. court, there was a statement that KRW 9.8889 billion was deposited from the securities beneficiary certificate account of Nonindicted Company 28 to the said new bank (Account Number 1 omitted) account on May 3, 2001 and KRW 9.8895 billion was deposited again on the same day (the trial record 99 pages) other than the statement that KRW 9.8888 billion was deposited from the said new bank (Account Number 2 omitted) account of Nonindicted Company 31 to the Samsung Profit-making account of May 4, 2001 (the above 99 pages). The above accounting report alone did not recognize that Nonindicted Company 10 was actually in charge of the said new bank (Account Number 1 omitted) account, and that Nonindicted Company 30 did not directly confirm whether the person transferred the money from the said new bank under the name of Nonindicted Company 31 to 3101, and that Nonindicted Company 3101 was directly remitted to the said new bank (Account 29710.

(C) From October 5, 2007, Nonindicted 40, 41, 42, and 30, etc., the working team of the instant countermeasures group, had already been in charge of securing and analyzing the above accounting report (299 pages, 305 pages of the trial record). The Defendant, as a co-head of the countermeasures group, examined the practical team members and materials as well as prepared and distributed the report materials pursuant to the direction of discussion and meeting. The Defendant confirmed the news report materials announced by Hanraa Party and the hub of its representative (328 of the trial record, Nonindicted 40’s second trial date, evidence record No. 1, 381 of the witness’s second trial date, and evidence record No. 1, 101 of the witness, and 101 of the instant countermeasures group, and the Defendant or the working team of the instant countermeasures did not directly confirm Nonindicted 1 on the suspicion of the instant case (20th trial date) and did not directly confirm the direction of the witness of the instant case (40th trial date).

(D) As to the assertion that “Non-Indicted 10 holds the account of Non-Indicted 4 Co. 4,” which was raised by Non-Indicted 44 members in the Government questioning, the account in the name of Non-Indicted 10 is not only the account of Non-Indicted 4 Co. 9, but also the account of Non-Indicted 4 Co., Ltd. (Evidence 8).

(E) On November 20, 2007, the news report materials of Hanra, including the fact that the candidate resigned from the representative director of the non-indicted 8 corporation on April 18, 2001 and that the non-indicted 1 continues to operate the "non-indicted 45" as the representative director. The certified transcript of the corporate register of the non-indicted 8 corporation also stated that the non-indicted 45 of this day, as of April 18, 2001, the candidate resigned from the representative director and the non-indicted 45 was appointed as the representative director on the same day (the eight books of evidence records) and the candidates and the non-indicted 10 were unrelated to the non-indicted 5 corporation (the right of evidence record).

(F) Prior to the change of the medical insurance and national pension rating (the 115 pages of the trial record), the Defendant stated “Nonindicted Co. 5” on the upper left side of the document and “foreign expenses” on the upper right side of the upper right, and the lower court’s approval column, but Nonindicted Co. 5’s “Nonindicted Co. 5” and “foreign expenses” are directly stated by Nonindicted 46. As to the reasons indicated above, Nonindicted 46 stated that the Defendant was prepared as such for the convenience of management, and Nonindicted Co. 5’s employees and those known as the employees of Nonindicted Co. 8’s employees were written without any distinction. Nonindicted Co. 30, who was the assistant of the Defendant, did not directly confirm the above documents to Nonindicted Co. 10 as well as to Nonindicted Co. 46, who was the employee of Nonindicted Co. 5 Co. 5’s employees (the 311st day of the trial record).

(G) On March 9, 2001, Nonindicted Party 1 submitted the above confirmation document stating that “ Nonindicted Party 10, who did not work as an executive or employee and did not have any details of deduction of wages and medical expenses, shall be deemed to be full-time operating personnel” (Evidence No. 1, No. 149, and No. 150). At the lower court, Nonindicted Party 30 stated that Nonindicted Party 1 was first aware of the above confirmation document submitted by Nonindicted Party 1 at the prosecutor’s office of this case (the trial record No. 290 pages) before the instant publication was conducted by the Financial Supervisory Service (the trial record No. 290), and that Nonindicted Party 10 was not a witness at the time of Nonindicted Party 4’s questioning of the Government, and that Nonindicted Party 10 was not a witness at the time of Nonindicted Party 5’s temporary meeting report or confirmation document No. 280, Nov. 7, 2007 (the record No. 290, 207).

(h) On November 12, 2007, the news report materials prepared by Nonindicted Co. 1 in relation to the Governor of the Financial Supervisory Service on November 14, 2007, “ Nonindicted Co. 5 owns absolute equity interest in Nonindicted Co. 19, a foreign corporation located in Nonindicted Co. 19 ($4 million), and as of March 10, 2001, an overseas corporation holds 100% of equity interest. Ultimately, Nonindicted Co. 5 may be deemed to be a corporation having de facto influence, and Nonindicted Co. 1’s confirmation document was attached to Nonindicted Co. 1 on March 10, 201 (Evidence 8) and Nonindicted Co. 5’s statement on the news report materials on the 14th day of the same month including Nonindicted Co. 1’s statement that Nonindicted Co. 5 owned Nonindicted Co. 5’s signature at the tax office, and Nonindicted Co. 2’s statement that Nonindicted Co. 1 owned 10% of equity interest in Nonindicted Co. 5’s signature and 28’s statement that it owned it.

(E) On December 5, 2007, the prosecution announced the results of the investigation into the suspicion of the instant case and the suspicion of the instant crime by Nonindicted Party 1, while holding the 100% shares of Nonindicted Party 5 Co. 1 independently, and operated it. The candidate for e-mail clearly stated that he was confirmed through various evidences that he was not related to Nonindicted Company 5 Co. 5 (Evidence No. 9, No. 438 pages).

(j) Meanwhile, around November 30, 2007, the Defendant obtained copies of the instant camera B from Nonindicted 38 through Nonindicted 30 assistant officers, and the Defendant did not confirm the specific source of the camera B (Evidence No. 1, 85 pages, 86 pages), and Nonindicted 38 reporters stated to the effect that “Although Nonindicted 8 Company’s own possession of Nonindicted 5 Company, according to the Qua B, Nonindicted 30 assistant officers could not be viewed as an article because they could be asserted on their own because they could be asserted (Evidence No. 1, 427 pages, and 428 pages).”

(k) On December 5, 2007, the Defendant did not collect specific preparation process of meta B and grounds to support metamer B, which are contrary to the investigation result of the said prosecutor’s office, by holding Nonindicted 49 attorney-at-law, who belongs to the Democratic Party, directly prepared the metamer B by meeting Nonindicted 1 after the prosecutor’s investigation was conducted on December 5, 2007 (Evidence 1 right, 426 pages). However, the Defendant heard that Nonindicted 1, who was affiliated with the Democratic Party, confirmed that Nonindicted 49 attorney-at-law was directly prepared the metamer B by meeting Nonindicted

(2) As to the recognition of falsity of the contents of the instant publication

In the crime of publishing false facts under Article 250(2) of the Public Official Election Act, it is necessary to recognize that the facts were false as the content of the actor’s intentional act. The existence of such subjective perception is, given its nature, as long as it is difficult to know or prove it outside, by taking into account all the circumstances such as the Defendant’s educational background, career, social status, process of publication, time of publication, and ripple effect which is objectively anticipated, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do2627, Jul. 22, 2005). The intention of the crime includes not only conclusive intention but also dolusent intention, and thus, it is necessary to establish the crime of publishing false facts under Article 250(2) of the Public Official Election Act as the content of the actor’s intentional act. The existence of such subjective perception means that it is possible for the general public to recognize the possibility of an intentional act as a subjective element of the constituent element of the crime, and it is also possible to recognize the possibility of an intentional act as well as the possibility of an intentional act.

(A) As to Article 2-2(a) of the judgment of the court below

In light of the above legal principles, the fact that the defendant confirmed the truth of the detailed facts stated in this part of the facts charged that he had actively engaged in the publication of this part without making an effort to confirm it, even if it is recognized that it was possible in time and physically by social norms due to the verification of Nonindicted 3's attorney, etc., and that there was a report that the reason for resignation of Nonindicted 3's attorney was different from that of the defendant's publication prior to the publication of this case, as seen in the above "Article 2-Ra (2)-Ga of the above," the defendant can be deemed to have been recognized as the defendant at least as to the fact that the contents of publication of this part are false

(B) As to Article 2-2 (b), (c), and (d) of the judgment of the court below

As seen earlier, the key grounds for the instant suspicion against the candidate for marbling were as follows: (a) Nonindicted 1’s assertion and documents related to Nonindicted 5 Co., Ltd.; (b) Nonparty 1’s assertion that the candidate had no grounds for the instant suspicion; and (c) Nonparty 1’s assertion that the candidate had no grounds for the instant suspicion; and (d) Nonparty 1’s assertion that the candidate had no grounds for the public announcement of the instant suspicion; and (b) Nonparty 1’s assertion that the candidate had no grounds for the public announcement of the instant suspicion, such as the fact that the candidate had no reason to believe that the candidate had no suspicion of the instant suspicion against the marbling; and (b) Nonindicted 1’s assertion that the candidate had no reason to believe that the candidate had no reason for the public announcement of the instant suspicion, such as the fact that the candidate had no reason to believe that the candidate had no reason for the public announcement of the instant suspicion of the fact that the candidate had no reason to prove that the candidate had no reason for the public announcement of the instant accusation.

(3) As to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the content of the instant case is true

As seen earlier, the Defendant did not have any negligence with regard to the fact that the contents of the instant publication are false, but the Defendant asserts that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of the instant publication are true, and thus, it is also examined.

Under a democratic political system, freedom of the press is the most basic fundamental right, and it is necessary and important to verify candidates in the election process. Thus, if there is any reason to suspect the eligibility of candidates for public office, the problem raising shall not be easily obstructed. Thus, if the suspicion raised against candidates is based on the reasonable ground to believe that the raising of suspicion about the candidate is true, even if it is found after the suspicion is not true, it shall not be punishable to guarantee freedom of expression (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2001Do6138, Feb. 20, 2003; Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2879, Jul. 13, 2007; Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do6138, Feb. 20, 2007; 2007Do2879, Jul. 13, 2007).

Furthermore, since it is necessary and important to verify the candidate's eligibility to take charge of public service in the election for public office, it is also necessary to guarantee the candidate's freedom to raise suspicion for the candidate's qualifying examination. To this end, if there are justifiable circumstances making the candidate feel illegal or bad, it shall be allowed to raise doubt. Before the public judgment is made, it shall not be easily obstructed the raising of doubt. However, the issue of whether it is a justifiable doubt is determined by the degree of the circumstance that there is doubt and the balance of the public interest related to the raising of doubt. Although there is no evidence to reveal the suspicion of the result of public investigation conducted on the suspicion, continuing to raise doubt without new circumstances or evidence is not reasonable, and if it is evident that there is an issue of public investigation already conducted, it is not only a new situation, but it is not necessary to allow the candidate to continuously raise suspicion for the same reason for the discovery of new evidences, and it is not obvious that the candidate's examination result is significantly detrimental to the candidate's reputation, even if it is found that it is not a serious result of the candidate's eligibility for public service.

In particular, the institution of suspicion related to the suspicion of a crime by a candidate for a specific public service shall, in principle, be limited to the complementary role of a public agency that has the responsibility and authority for an investigation and a trial, and unless there are special circumstances, the determination of a public agency in a specific case shall be respected first. This is because, in general, it cannot be deemed that an agency or an individual other than a public agency that is in charge of an investigation or a trial is superior to an investigation agency in terms of human resources, physical size or expertise, and if a judgment of a public agency is denied based on subjective suspicion in a specific case, the public confidence of a public agency in the agency in charge of an investigation or a trial may be increased so that the existence of the system related to an investigation and a trial may be threatened, and in a serious case, the possibility of distorted the substantial truth due to the interests of the institution or individual.

Therefore, in order to express a different opinion from the determination of a public agency with respect to specific cases already completed as a result of an investigation agency or a similar state agency, it is necessary to pay more careful attention compared to the suspicion raised before such a public agency’s determination. In the event that the contents of such publication are found not to be true, the strict one-story standard should be applied to the determination of reasonableness as the ground for illegality committed before the aforementioned public result. In particular, in a case where a public agency such as a member of the National Assembly investigates, investigates, or investigates, with respect to matters of which the general public has a large interest, by an investigation agency or a similar state agency, or by a public agency, etc., or where it is about facts of a crime committed against a candidate for a public official who is under investigation or investigation, it is necessary to ensure that the public agency’s authority and confidence in such a public agency accept the contents of publication as it is, and even if it is possible to guarantee or increase the freedom of election of a member of the National Assembly, it is more necessary to guarantee or increase the freedom of election to the general public rather than to do so.

On December 5, 207, the lower court’s conclusion that Nonindicted Party 1’s name was insufficient to acknowledge that Nonindicted Party 4’s name and non-Indicted Party 6’s name and non-Indicted Party 6’s name and non-Indicted Party 6’s name and non-Indicted Party 6’s name and non-Indicted Party 6’s name and non-Indicted Party 6’s name and non-Indicted Party 4’s name and non-Indicted Party 6’s name and non-Indicted Party 6’s name and non-Indicted Party 4’s name and non-Indicted Party 6’s name and non-Indicted Party 6’s name and non-Indicted Party 6’s name and non-Indicted Party 6’s name and non-Indicted Party 6’s name and non-Indicted Party 4’s name and non-Indicted Party 6’s name and non-Indicted Party 6’s name and non-Indicted Party 6’s name and non-Indicted Party 6’s name and non-Indicted Party 1’s name and non-Indicted Party 1’s name.

Therefore, in light of the above circumstances, the contents of the publication of this case cannot be deemed true on the grounds as seen earlier. In light of the fact that the disclosure of this case considerably affected the ripple effect due to the publication of this case, although the Defendant, as the head of the countermeasure group, made the publication of this case on the basis of the information that the Defendant acquired by collecting material for a considerable period of time to discover the truth of the suspicion of this case or contact with the persons concerned, etc., and made the publication of this case on the basis of the information acquired by the Defendant, etc., such as gathering material for a considerable period of time to visit the truth of the suspicion of this case, and there were circumstances that the prosecution made a broad investigation due to the repatriation of Non-Indicted 1, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have continuously made the publication of this case by using the Defendant’s deceptive expression on the basis of the circumstance that there was some contradictions or doubtss about the harmful effect of the suspect's suspicion of this case, on the sole basis of the circumstance that the Defendant had some contradictions or doubtss about the explanation of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below (However, since the part of "the defendant, despite the forum, is obvious that the defendant is a clerical error in the 11th page of the "Article 13 of the Criminal Procedure Act" of the 11st page of the court below's judgment, it is obvious that the defendant is a clerical error in the "by December 3, 2007," the correction is made in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.

Judges Park Hong-woo (Presiding Judge)