A. (1) The facts alleged by the Defendants by misunderstanding the legal principles are true, and there are parts different from the truth.

Even if the overall content is consistent with objective facts, it cannot be concluded that it is false.

In addition, the Defendants prepared the instant printed matter by citing media reports as it is, and there was considerable reason to believe that the Defendants were true in content. The Defendants’ preparation of the instant printed matter was solely for the public interest because it was intended to criticize and urge correction of H’s inappropriate behavior in a public position as G.

Therefore, although the Defendants’ act was not unlawful, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) Each sentence (Defendant A: a fine of 2 million won, Defendant B: a fine of 700,000 won) sentenced by the lower court against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

B. Each sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below on the Defendants is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendants’ misunderstanding of legal principles

A. In order to establish a crime of defamation by publicly alleging false facts as provided by Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, the criminal must publicly indicate the fact, and the time-finding should be a false fact that impairs people’s social evaluation. In the event that the important part here is consistent with objective facts, even if there is a little difference from the truth or somewhat exaggerated expression in the detailed contents, it cannot be viewed as a false fact. However, in determining whether it is a false fact, it is inconsistent with objective facts by examining the overall purport of the stated fact.