All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. The defendant A (in relation to the offense of insult), used the expression "fluorly fluor patient who returned money" in the course of the Kakakao Groupting, but it was merely a speech to the extent that it does not violate the social rules in order to point out the victim's mistakes. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. Prosecutor 1) Fact-finding of the facts that the defendants sent a petition to the Ulsan District Association with the content that the victim committed a fraud. Since there is no special relation between the victim and the Ulsan District Association, the contents of the petition sent by the defendants are sufficient enough to be disseminated by the person in charge. Thus, the defendants' sending the petition to the Ulsan District Association constitutes defamation due to public performance, but the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendants on the ground that there is no public performance, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts. 2) The sentencing of the court below (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant's 300,000 won") is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 20 of the Criminal Act provides that the act of Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles not to be punished is stipulated as the basis for determining the most basic illegality. According to such provision, even if the act appears to fall under the element of crime in light of the language and text of the law, its illegality may not be dismissed and punished only when it appears to be within the scope of social order which is naturally created as a normal living form, and it is recognized that the act subject to punishment is not wholly unlawful due to the development of society.