The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. The grounds of appeal (in fact-finding, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing) asserts that the lower judgment should be reversed on the following grounds.

In relation to defamation, the phrase of appeal distributed at the time of the press conference is merely stating the legal evaluation of the act of the victim response group (hereinafter referred to as the "victim response group," such as E and L, which suffered monetary damage by D, and the members of the "victim response group (hereinafter referred to as the "victim's response group") who are faced with D," and the card is merely stating the requirements of D. Thus, it cannot be deemed that there is a specific factual market that may damage D's reputation.

B. In relation to the issue of insult, it is difficult to view that there was an insulting speech to the extent that the Defendant or a member of the victim gathering expressed “D” as at April 24, 201, and the remaining expressions alone do not constitute an insulting speech to the extent that D’s personality is destroyed by light of the abstract value judgment of D’s act beyond D’s act, from the wall mountain distance around 15:00 on April 21, 201.

C. The existence of the grounds for the exclusion of illegality, even if there were defamation expressions, the content of publication is true, and since the act was committed to prevent any further victim from occurring as a public official D as a Si Council member, the major purpose or motive of the act is for the public interest. As such, there exists a ground for the exclusion of illegality under Article 310 of the Criminal Act, and even if there was an insulting speech, it was derived from the process of expressing short phrases to inform the public without exercising physical power, and thus, there was a ground for exclusion of illegality as an act contrary to the social rules under Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

With respect to sentencing, the sentencing of the court below (the fine of KRW 500,000) against the defendant is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below and the court below are legitimate in determining whether there was a specific factual presentation about the degree of defamation.