A. The contents of Defendant A (Legal Pio)’s remarks made by Defendant A are true facts and solely for the public interest. Thus, illegality is dismissed by Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

B. Defendant B (Definite and misunderstanding of legal principles) did not say that Defendant B made the word “definite”, and even if he made such words, it merely borrows the expressions emitted from the sexual landscape, and thus cannot be deemed to have insulting the victim.

C. Defendant C (De facto mistake, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing) Defendant C’s statement is a true fact that solely pertains to the public interest and thus, illegality is excluded pursuant to Article 310 of the Criminal Act. 2) The lower court’s punishment (including fine of KRW 500,00 and 1 year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

The public prosecutor (the fact-finding and the improper sentencing) 1) acknowledged the public contest relationship between Defendant A and Defendant C, Defendant B and K on each crime listed in the judgment of the court below. The court below found the public contest relationship between each of the above persons as not guilty on the ground that there was an error of mistake of facts. 2) The court below's punishment against the Defendants (the fine of KRW 500,000,000 and the suspended sentence of one year) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant A and C’s assertion of illegality rejection, the Defendants asserted the same purport in the lower court, but the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, is merely a fact that the Defendants’ remarks are true, or a somewhat exaggerated expression that differs from the truth and differs from the truth.

In addition, the Defendants rejected the Defendants’ assertion on the ground that it is difficult to deem that there is a considerable reason to believe that it is true.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the evidence, the defendant's statement of criminal facts in the judgment of the court below significantly affected the victim's honor, but the defendant's contents are objective truth.