Defendant

Defendant

Doese (prosecutions) and Doese (Public trial)

Law Firm LLC et al.

Ulsan District Court Decision 2018Gohap251 Decided April 16, 2019

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) First point: In cases where opinions are mixed and factual market values are mixed, misunderstanding the legal principles as to the distinction;

In light of the foregoing, the instant reporters’ statement was an expression of opinion related to the presentation of a pledge as a whole. Of the said reporters’ statement, only the said part of the statement was presented in the background of the presentation of the said pledge, and cannot be viewed as an indication of fact separately from the said part of the statement.

B. Second point: misunderstanding of legal principles as to determination of falsity

In 2010, Non-Indicted 1 was a movement for additional construction of △△△△△△△△ factory in accordance with the MOU agreement on the additional construction of ○ factory between Non-Indicted 4 and △△△△△△△△△, which was a candidate for the ○○○○ City, and the former proposal of Non-Indicted 3 of the National Assembly member around 2010, and even though △△△△△△△△ was submitted a research complex development project plan around 2012, it did not provide administrative support

Therefore, it is true that Nonindicted Party 1 did not provide administrative support for the construction of additional △△△△△△ factory or the construction of a research complex when Nonindicted Party 1 holds office in the ○○ market. Thus, the instant remarks are not false.

C. Third point: misunderstanding of legal principles as to awareness of falsity, etc.

In light of the following circumstances, it is clear that the Defendant did not recognize that the part of the instant speech at the time of the instant reporters’ meeting was false.

① Nonindicted 5, an attorney-at-law, drafted the instant written reply. Nonindicted 5 is the representative of the ○○ City, which is going to go out to the ○○○○ City, and was close to the process of establishing the △△△△△△ factory. The Defendant was difficult to have a mind about the written reply, prepared by such Nonindicted 5.

② Although the press conference of this case was initially decided by Nonindicted 5’s attorney, the Defendant was changed to directly engage in an election campaign on the same day. Accordingly, the Defendant moved to another place to the press conference. The time to review the press conference of this case was only 10 minutes and 2 minutes.

③ As described in the foregoing B, Nonindicted Party 1 did not provide administrative support for the additional construction, etc. of △△△△△△△△ factory. The Defendant, who was believed to have been wrong, was aware that the instant remarks were made by Nonindicted Party 1, due to the administrative inconvenience in Nonindicted Party 2’s market Section or in Nonindicted Party 1’s market Section.

D. Point 4: Contributory misunderstanding of legal principles as to the freedom of expression to verify eligibility for public service

In the event of Non-Indicted 1’s holding office in the ○○ market, the candidate rejected any investment or development by △△△△△△, including the extension of factory and establishment of a research complex, which was requested by △△△△△△△△△△△△△△ to the ○○○○○○ Industrial Complex. This is because Nonindicted 1’s candidate priority over the “debted System” policy from July 2010, and there was a negative appraisal on Nonindicted 1’s failure to pay interest in attracting corporate investment or complying with Nonindicted 4’s pledge, which was a competitor at the time.

The instant statement is a legitimate suspicion against Nonindicted Party 1’s candidate for the purpose of examining Nonindicted Party 1’s eligibility as a public official, and cannot be punishable as a freedom of expression.

E. Point 5: Unfair sentencing

In full view of the fact that the speaking in this case does not have any influence on the election, that the support rate of the defendant was much higher than that of Nonindicted Party 1 at the time of election, and that Nonindicted Party 1 carried out an election campaign to the greatest extent defensively, and that Nonindicted Party 1 voluntarily withdraws the accusation in this case, the punishment of the lower court (a fine of five million won) which makes the Defendant invalidated the election of the ○○ market is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 (misunderstanding of legal principles as to the determination of falsity, etc. in a case where there is a mixture of opinions and factual market values)

1) The judgment of the court below

The Defendant asserted that the instant statement was not a statement of false facts in the lower court, and the lower court acknowledged the facts based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, and determined that, in light of the legal doctrine as seen earlier, the Defendant, through the instant part of the statement, was sufficient to recognize that the △△△ factory, which was able to attract Nonindicted Party 1 to the ○○○○○○○ Factory site, was a false fact-finding factory, without having been involved in the selection of Nonindicted Party 1 candidate at the △△△△△△ Factory site through the instant part of the statement, was a false fact-finding factory at least △△△△△

① The part of the instant speech is comprised of the part that points out the reason why the △△△△△△△△ factory was held during the candidate office of Nonindicted 1, the part that points out that the ○○ factory site was narrow, and that there was no effort to consider and resolve it together, and the part that points out that the ○○△△△△△ factory site was located during the candidate office of Nonindicted 1. In light of the composition of the instant speech part, the language and expression method used, and the relation between the literature and text, etc., the Defendant may be deemed to have referred to the part that points out the instant speech part in order to point out who is responsible for the construction of △△△△△ factory in △△△△△△△△△ factory in △△△△△△△, not the ○○○ City.

② The Defendant alleged that the instant part of the speech was pointed out of ○○○ city’s administrative lodging prior to the candidate’s holding office. However, if the Defendant intended to point out “before the candidate’s holding office during the period of Nonparty 1’s holding office,” it would be reasonable to refer to the investment agreement or the formula that was prior to the candidate’s holding office in △△△△ factory, which was directly related to the △△△ factory’s holding office.

③ In addition, if the Defendant intended to point out Nonindicted Party 1’s administrative knowledge prior to the candidate’s holding office, it was sufficiently possible to use the expressions such as “administrative prior to the candidate’s holding office” or “administrative prior to the candidate’s holding office during the period of Nonparty 1’s holding office,” the Defendant repeated only the expressions regarding the period in conflict with the meaning claimed by the Defendant, such as “Nonindicted Party 1’s holding office.”

④ The last sentence of the instant speech consists of the following order: (a) after using the expression “I”, the term “I will take place due to the administrative holiday during the period of office for the candidate for Nonparty 1; and (b) from the standpoint of a general elector, the general elector is bound to understand that the responsibility that the △△△△ factory constructed in △△△△△△△△△△ Factory and causes a job problem in ○○○○ City is the candidate

⑤ These circumstances are sufficiently supported by the fact that Nonindicted 6, who participated in the instant reporter conference, promptly asked that “whether the decision on the transfer of the △△△△△△△△ site was not a decision to the Si Section 2 in the market of Nonindicted 2.” Some media companies received Nonindicted 1’s claim for objection against the candidate, and the Internet Election News Deliberative Committee issued an order for the publication of the corrective report against the media companies that made a report by invoked the instant reporter conference.

6) The Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the following expressions were expressed in the process of the preparation by Nonindicted 5’s attorney-at-law, the author of the instant reporter’s interview, to the maximum extent possible, while avoiding the said speech uniform:

On October 12, 2012, the meaning of the statement part of this case claimed by the Defendant and his defense counsel in the main text was held at △△△△△△△ factory on October 12, 2012, which is Nonindicted Party 1’s term of office in office. (The administrative support was insufficient even if the site of the ○○ factory was narrow prior to the candidate’s term of office) and the direction of the ○○○○○ City’s attempt to consider and resolve it together. This is due to Nonindicted Party 1’s term of office (before his term of office in office), the job substitute occurred.

However, the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion is inconsistent with the statement at the lower court’s trial, which is the reporter of the instant reporters’ meeting, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant merely made a statement without omitting the above overall part in order to avoid the club uniform. The above overall part is very important in understanding who is responsible for the appointment of △△△△△ Factory site in relation to the culture and gear and connection. As such, from the perspective of a general elector, the meaning of the part of the instant statement is difficult to accept as pointing out “the administrative know prior to the candidate for Nonparty 1’s office,” as argued by the Defendant and the defense counsel.

7) In addition, the Defendant and his defense counsel argued to the effect that the Defendant did not make a false fact public, because the Defendant clearly stated that the part of the instant speech was irrelevant to Nonindicted 6’s candidate, following the Defendant’s interview, but the Defendant was asked questions from Nonindicted 6, and that the part of the instant speech was not pointed out of Nonindicted 1’s wrongness, rather than clearly responded to the purport that the Defendant did not clearly answer that the part of the instant speech was not point out of Nonindicted 6’s wrongness, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s answer was correct the false fact that the Defendant respondeded as above.

④ Furthermore, even if the overall purport of the instant reporters’ association is to attract the Defendant again by making efforts due to the administrative deliberation of the existing ○○○ City, considering the timing and background of the instant reporters’ association, it is difficult to view the instant reporters’ association as either an exaggeration of circumstances or a mere number of times out of the aforementioned process, and rather, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant intentionally added wrong facts for the purpose of evading or attacking the existing market and Nonindicted 1, a candidate, for the sake of emphasizing his pledge, etc.

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

A) First, we examine whether the instant speech ought to be seen as an expression of opinion, and whether it ought to be seen as a statement of fact.

In light of the following circumstances, the reasoning of the lower court’s decision is justifiable since the instant speech ought not to be deemed an expression of opinion, but to be a statement of fact. This part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

① Clearly, the subject of the instant press conference is an expression of opinion by presenting a pledge of job creation, etc. through the inducement of enterprises. However, in order to maximize the effectiveness of the proposal of a pledge, the Defendant included the instant press in the press conference. It is apparent that the said press speech refers to the past facts about whom △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△

② Inasmuch as the instant reporter’s interview constitutes an expression of opinion through the presentation of an electoral pledge, the instant speech constituting a statement of opinion does not constitute an expression of opinion. When a statement of opinion and fact is mixed, it should be determined as to whether it slanders by the overall pointing out the facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do168, Mar. 10, 201). However, the overall seeing of the relevant document or statement as a whole means that the overall sees the relevant document or statement as a whole to distinguish whether it is an expression of opinion or a statement of fact.

B) Next, we examine whether the instant speech was false or false.

In light of the following circumstances that can be seen by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, this case’s speech constitutes a false fact since the construction of △△△△ Factory was determined before Nonindicted 1’s ○○○ Factory was at the time of his office, and thus, it was not related to Nonindicted 1’s ○○○ Factory, and thus, it constitutes an expression as if it was due to Nonindicted 1’s ○○○ Factory’s ○○○○○ Factory’s administrative accommodation. This part of the Defendant’

① After there was an agreement between the National Assembly member, Nonindicted 3 and △△△△△△ in 2010 to sign a MOU regarding the additional construction of ○ factory, the Defendant asserted that the instant remarks are not false since Nonindicted 1 did not provide administrative support to the members of the National Assembly, even though △△△△△△△ intended to build a research complex at ○○○○, in 2012, even though △△△△△△△△ intended to build a research complex.

However, the instant speech is solely about the process of and responsibility for the construction of △△△ Factory, and it is not about whether to provide administrative support for the expansion of ○○ Factory or the construction of a research complex. Thus, even if Nonindicted 1 did not provide administrative support for the Defendant’s assertion, the instant speech is false.

② At the time of the instant press conference, the content of the press organization’s report and the content of Nonindicted Party 1’s survey were related to whether solely Nonindicted Party 1 was responsible for the construction of the △ Factory, and the said ○ Factory was not related to the move for the expansion of the ○ Factory or the creation of a research complex.

③ On June 1, 2018, the Defendant asserts that Nonindicted 5’s instant remarks on his SNS only speaks about the objective fact that the instant remarks were about the period of office in the ○○ Market for Nonindicted 1 candidate on October 2012, 2012, and that there was no fact that Nonindicted 5 was not responsible for Nonindicted 1 candidate (Evidence No. 174 pages).

However, this case’s speech is made through a press organization’s one-time conference against the press organization, and the true meaning of this case’s speech is indicated in the above SNS that only the minority supporting the Defendant as the figures of Nonindicted 5, and it cannot be said that the above SNS’s contents were part of the above SNS’s speech, and it cannot be said that the above SNS’s entire purport is not false. Furthermore, it is understood that it criticizes Nonindicted 1’s candidate that the above SNS’s part of the instant speech was engaged in an election campaign by gathering the instant speech.

B. As to the third point of appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles as to the recognition of falsity, etc.)

1) The judgment of the court below

The Defendant also asserted the same in the lower court, and the lower court acknowledged the underlying facts based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, and determined that the Defendant could sufficiently recognize that the Defendant announced the instant speech as it was, despite the dolusence of the fact that there were false facts as to Nonindicted Party 1 candidate, in light of the relevant facts and the following circumstances in light of the legal doctrine as seen earlier.

① Around September 2009, on which the decision to select a site for △△△△△△ Factory was made, the Defendant was acting as a member of the ○○ City Council with Nonindicted Party 1’s candidate, and the decision to select a site for △△△△△△ factory was well known to anyone who was in a time irrelevant to the period of office in the ○○○○ market for Nonindicted Party 1’s candidate, and this does not conflict with the Defendant. Nevertheless, the Defendant presented it as is without any measures to correct or confirm the specific meaning of the instant remarks, which are understood to the effect that, from the perspective of ordinary electors, the Defendant was responsible for the construction of △△△ factory in △△△△△ Factory in △△△

② As the final person responsible for the election, the Defendant, who announced the instant reporters’ interview as the final person responsible for the election, should have taken measures, such as correcting erroneous facts, if any part different from the facts is discovered in the reporters’ interview. As such, even if the Defendant, as so alleged, read the instant reporters’ interview prepared by Nonindicted 5 Attorney, it does not interfere with the Defendant’s willful negligence recognition.

③ In addition, even though the Defendant did not seem to have been unable to verify the truth of the instant remarks or correct it before the reporter’s visit in terms of social norms, the Defendant appears to have taken any effort to correct it, without making any effort.

④ Furthermore, if the Defendant understood that the meaning of the part of the instant speech, as alleged in the Defendant’s assertion, was pointing out the administrative know-how prior to the period during which Nonindicted 1 was the candidate, it would be reasonable to actively explain or explain the true meaning of the part of the instant speech in a situation where it is obvious that there was a large number of press reports after the submission of the written statement, the Defendant, who was asked from Nonindicted 6 that “The decision on the transfer of the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ was not a decision to the Si Section 2 market,” would be likely to distort or mislead the right holder, and thus, it would be reasonable to view that the Defendant presented the written statement in this case with the awareness of the meaning of the part of the instant speech, as seen earlier. However, in light of this, the Defendant did not take any such measures, and even if considering this, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant presented the written statement in this case with the perception of the meaning of the part of the instant speech.

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

The above judgment of the court below is justified in light of the following circumstances, which can be seen by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below. This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

① The Defendant had been well aware of the fact that the construction of △△ factory was previously decided before the candidate was in office in the ○○ market. If a person with ordinary care read the instant speech only once, anyone can be aware that the contents of the instant speech were extended to △△ factory rather than the ○○ market, rather than the ○○ market, due to Nonindicted Party 1’s administrative accommodation in ○○ market facilities.

② The time of the instant speech was two weeks before the election day, when the election campaign was carried out in full and was carried out in the form of a press conference. On June 13, 2018, job creation was presented as a core pledge in the nationwide and provincial elections. As such, there was incentive to emphasize one’s own pledge related to job creation by publicly alleging false facts or distort the facts.

③ The Defendant did not clearly state that Nonindicted 6’s remarks were erroneous or are likely to be misunderstanding, notwithstanding the aforementioned points, immediately after the instant reporter’s visit.

In addition, even though Non-Indicted 1 did not hold a reply to the instant statement on the same day, but did not state that the instant statement was erroneous or is likely to be erroneous on May 31, 2018 following the following day, despite Non-Indicted 1’s request for correction through a speaker located in the Defendant’s election campaign headquarters.

Rather, the Defendant alleged that Nonindicted Party 1 was carrying out a negative election campaign, such as Nonindicted Party 1’s dismissal of himself, even though Nonindicted Party 1’s point of view or the instant accusation was justifiable. Such circumstances are likely to be deemed to have recognized the falsity of the instant speech.

④ If the Defendant did not know that the Defendant’s remarks were false at the time of the instant speech, at least the point of Nonindicted 6’s point of view or Nonindicted 1’s reply was made after Nonindicted 6’s point of view or Nonindicted 1’s reply was made. On May 31, 2018, the Defendant sent the meaning of the said speech accurately at his own briefing session.

⑤ On June 6, 2018, the Defendant alleged that the instant speech was made with Nonindicted Party 1 by recognizing that it was not related to Nonindicted Party 1’s extension in the TV forum. However, the said apology was made immediately before an election at the time after the lapse of one week after the instant speech was made, and there is no false perception, and there is no flexible circumstance that there was no false perception.

C. As to the ground of appeal No. 4 (misunderstanding of legal principles as to the freedom of expression for verification of public service eligibility)

1) Under a democratic political system, the freedom of the press is the most fundamental right, and it is not easy to say that it should be sufficiently guaranteed in the election process. In addition, since it is necessary and important to verify the candidate's eligibility to take charge of the public service in the election of public officials, the freedom of the press for the verification of eligibility is also guaranteed. For this purpose, in a case where there are circumstances that suspect the candidate's illegality or morality, the filing of a question should be allowed, and the raising of suspicions should not be easily obstructed even before the public judgment is made.

However, if the basis is widely permitted to raise an imminent suspicion, it would result in a significant result that damages the reputation of the candidate for divinga, as well as misleads the choice of the voters in an imminent election, even if the suspicion is found to be true, which would result in a significant violation of the public interest.

Therefore, a candidate’s suspicion as to the candidate’s corruption should be permitted only when it is for the purpose of verifying whether he/she is eligible to serve as a public official and there is a considerable reason to believe that such suspicion is true. In addition, a person who actively asserts the existence of a suspected fact should be liable to present a prima facie proof. If he/she does not present such explanatory evidence, he/she should be held liable for the publication of false facts unless there is any other evidence to prove the existence of the alleged fact. On the other hand, in cases where there is a considerable reason to believe that such suspicion is true by the supporting materials, etc. presented, even if it is revealed that it is not true, it shall not be punishable to guarantee freedom of expression (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2001Do6138, Feb. 20, 2003).

2) We examine the instant case based on the foregoing legal doctrine.

The instant speech is that the construction of △△△ Factory was decided before Nonindicted 1’s extension of office in the ○○ market, and thus, even though Nonindicted 1 was not related to Nonindicted 1, △△△△△△ was extended the factory in △△△△ Group rather than the ○○ City at the time of Nonindicted 1’s extension of office in the ○○○○ market. This is irrelevant to Nonindicted 1’s preferential examination of Nonindicted 1’s “debted System” policy from July 2010, and there was no interest in attracting corporate investment, or there was a negative assessment on Nonindicted 4’s compliance with Nonindicted 1’s pledge that was a competitor at the time.

In addition, the Defendant did not have suspicion, such as the contents of the instant statement, but knew well that the decline in the job at ○○○○○ due to the construction of the △△△△ factory was not related to Nonindicted Party 1’s candidate. The instant statement cannot be deemed as a suspicion for verifying the other candidate’s public service eligibility. This part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

D. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 5 (Finite Undue Practices)

1) Relevant legal principles

The term “unfair sentencing” refers to cases where the sentence of the lower judgment is too heavy or too minor in light of the substance of the specific case. In cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court, and the sentencing of the lower court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court. On the other hand, in such a case as the lower court’s sentencing judgment is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion in full view of the matters on the conditions of sentencing as expressed in the process of the lower court’s sentencing examination and the sentencing guidelines, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing judgment of the lower court in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing examination, the appellate court shall reverse the unfair judgment of the lower court (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do

2) We examine whether the sentence of the lower court that returned to the instant case is too unreasonable in light of the content of the specific case.

A) The lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant’s act of publishing false facts, as if he were responsible for the other candidate; (b) such act is likely to interfere with the rational choice of the voters with respect to the election of candidates; (c) the act of publishing false facts, which constitutes the foundation of free democracy, is likely to seriously affect the fairness of election, which constitutes the basis of free democracy; and (d) the act of publishing false facts, which is doubtful on the election day, should be careful when the right holder gives notice of such doubtful facts or is likely to mislead the expression; (d) although the Defendant knew of the fact that the speaking was false, it seems that the act of publishing false facts seems to have come to go to the instant crime; (e) even if the act of publishing false facts did not have a decisive effect on the election result, it does not in itself affect the elector’s quality, knowledge, pledge, etc. in the election process; and (e) such act would have resulted in a reduction in the opportunity of voters to vote in the candidate’s primary election period; and (e) the act of publishing false facts, including reasonable opportunity for election result, was beyond the scope of freedom of expression.

B) In light of the fact that the instant remarks have little influence on the election, the Defendant’s support rate at the time of the election was much higher than that of Nonindicted Party 1, and thus, the Defendant was defending to the greatest extent possible, Nonindicted Party 1 voluntarily withdrawn the instant accusation, the Defendant was subject to the approval of Nonindicted Party 1 by clarifying the meaning of the instant remarks in TV discussions on June 6, 2018, and the Defendant was on Nonindicted Party 1’s candidate by clarifying the meaning of the instant remarks in TV discussions on June 6, 2018, and it was clearly published that △△△△△△△△△△△’s extension of the factory in △△△△△△△△ was not responsible for Nonindicted Party 1’s election, after the instant remarks, and the corrective reports by the press, etc., the Defendant asserts that the sentence that becomes invalid for the Defendant is too unreasonable.

The instant remarks are based on the fact that △△△△△△ is responsible for the decline in jobs at ○○○ City, rather than the ○○ City, and that job creation at the time of the instant election was a key election campaign, it cannot be deemed that the said remarks did not have any impact on the election (the Defendant asserted that the said remarks were almost no impact on the election, on the grounds that the gap between the person himself and Nonindicted 1’s support rate was narrow after the instant remarks were made, but it is difficult to accept the said remarks insofar as it is not revealed that the gap in the support rate was narrow due to other factors).

According to the records, Nonindicted 7, who filed the instant accusation, as an election campaign worker for Nonindicted 1, is recognized as the fact that the instant accusation was withdrawn. However, not only the instant crime is an infringement of personal legal interests, but also is fair in accordance with the free will of the people and democratic procedures, and it is doubtful whether the withdrawal of the accusation should be considered as favorable circumstances in view of the legislative purpose of the Public Official Election Act aimed at contributing to the development of democratic politics by preventing any malpractice related to the election. In addition, in the instant case, the Defendant also filed the instant accusation against Nonindicted 1. The Defendant and Nonindicted 1, who filed the instant accusation, are calculated on the basis that the withdrawal of the accusation against each of the respective individuals is personal interest.

On June 6, 2018, the Defendant made it clear that the extension of the △△△△ factory was decided before Nonindicted Party 1 was in office in the TV conference, and even though it was found that the Defendant did so to Nonindicted Party 1, it was subject to apology, it was only one week from the time when the instant speech was made, and the Defendant was still at the latest, and the Defendant did not have the instant speech or expressed the accurate meaning of the said speech at the latest on May 31, 2018. During a week after the instant speech, Nonindicted Party 1 was unable to avoid the responsible public action against the decline, which means that the said speech affected the election.

C) Ultimately, the lower court’s sentencing is determined within the reasonable scope of discretion, because all the favorable and unfavorable circumstances in sentencing, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, health conditions, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., are considered as follows: (a) the lower court’s sentencing is determined based on the sentencing guidelines established by the Sentencing Commission based on Articles 81-2 and 81-6 of the Court Organization Act; and (b) the lower court’s sentencing is determined within the reasonable scope of discretion, as the lower court’s sentencing-related circumstances are equally taken into account, without changing the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s judgment; (c) the sentence imposed by the Defendant is too unreasonable. This part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is delivered in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act because the defendant's appeal is groundless.

Judges Shin Dong-dong (Presiding Judge)