All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants A, B, C, and D did not have been involved in preparing or sending a letter of the same contents as each offense of defamation as the offense of defamation in the facts charged against Defendant A, B, C, and D. Although the content of the above letter is not false but true and is not for the public interest, the lower court convicted Defendants A, B, C, and D of such violation, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The judgment of the court below which convicted Defendant D of each damage of Defendant D and E was not destroyed by the microphone that Defendant D destroyed or damaged, but was only damaged if Defendant D destroyed or damaged the subject and microphones and was on the subject of the instruction. However, the judgment of the court below which convicted Defendant D of such damage was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. Each sentence of the lower court (Defendant A and D: each fine of KRW 1.5 million suspended, Defendant B, and C: each fine of KRW 1.0 million suspended, Defendant E: each of the fines of KRW 1 million suspended, and Defendant E: 500,000 suspended sentence) is deemed too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 as to the grounds for appeal by the Defendants: (a) In determining whether the facts alleged in the crime of defamation by a statement of false facts under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act are false, it shall not be deemed as false if the contents of the alleged facts are different from the truth or are somewhat exaggerated in terms of the overall purport of the alleged facts; however, if the important parts are not consistent with objective facts, it shall be deemed as false (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do6343, Nov. 15, 2012). (b) In addition, it is difficult to determine whether an actor knows that such matters are false by nature, and it is difficult to know or prove from the outside, from the perspective of its nature, the content of the published facts, physical nature, existence and content of explanatory materials, and the Defendant’s expression.