A. The contents of the writing posted by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant notice”) are all true facts or facts with considerable grounds to believe the Defendant as true, and there is no awareness that the Defendant was false, and there is no awareness of false facts, and ② solely for the public interest without the purpose of slandering.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (1.5 million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail with the aforementioned argument and its decision in the judgment of the court below, which are the "decision on the defense counsel's assertion". In comparison with the above judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is

① Although a local government’s local cultural heritage designation is stipulated by municipal ordinance of the relevant local government, and a person who has an expertise in the field of functions of a person who has applied for the designation of intangible cultural heritage must be commissioned as an examiner under the D Cultural Heritage Protection Ordinance, it is pointed out that the above municipal ordinance deviates from the limit of delegation of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act, which is a legislative delegation delegated to the Mayor/Do Governor to designate local cultural heritage, the content of the notice in this case is that the defendant participates in