A. The Defendant believed that the content of the writing written in the column for the redevelopment notice of the Internet next carpet I was true, and there was considerable reason to believe that there was no intention for the Defendant to indicate false facts.

B. The Defendant’s act of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is for the public interest and is thus dismissed as illegality.

(c)

The punishment of the lower court (the penalty amounting to KRW 5,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged that the above facts were the same as the assertion of mistake in the lower court, and the lower court stated in detail the judgment on this issue, and stated that the content of the article posted by the Defendant in the lower court’s decision was false, and at the time, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the content was false.

In light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the judgment of the court below is justified, and the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. There is no room for application of Article 310 of the Criminal Act to an act constituting an offense of defamation by a statement of false facts regarding the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2690, May 9, 2012). As seen in subparagraph 2(a) above, insofar as the contents expressed by a defendant as false facts do not constitute a case where there is considerable reason to believe that the defendant is true, it cannot be deemed that the defendant’s act constitutes a public interest and thus, it cannot be deemed that the illegality of the defendant’s act is unlawful.

(c)

The fact that the defendant has no record of being punished as the same kind of crime is a favorable circumstance.

However, the crime of this case is highly likely to harm the reputation of the victim by pointing out false facts, and the defendant, however, is therefore.