All of the defendants' appeals are dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and inappropriate sentencing)

A. The Defendants did not recognize that the content of the report was false, and did not aim to conceal F.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is excessively unreasonable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the assertion of mistake of fact: (a) Whether an actor of the relevant legal doctrine recognizes that the matter was false or not should be determined on a normative basis of the following: (i) the content and existence of the published fact; (ii) the existence and content of the materials; and (iii) the source and awareness of the fact revealed by the Defendant; and (iv) the Defendant’s academic background, career, social status; (iv) the timing of publication; and (v) the objectively anticipated ripple effect therefrom.

(2) The court below's decision on this case can be accepted by evidence duly adopted and investigated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do2627, Jul. 22, 2005). (b) The court below held that the Defendants obtained a copy of the F's decision of non-prosecution, and that the statute of limitations has expired for the F's embezzlement suspicion. The contents of the decision of non-prosecution include only the determination that the F's embezzlement suspicion has expired, and it is apparent in the language that there is no fact of embezzlement suspicion, and it can be easily confirmed by a legal expert. The defendants can easily inquire of the legal expert. The defendants are working as a long-term journal, and have considerable experience and experience; Defendant A has been subject to a non-prosecution disposition five times; Defendant B has experience in receiving a non-prosecution disposition; Defendant B is difficult to obtain the prosecutor's report on the above decision of non-prosecution, and Defendants are not aware that the F's public prosecutor had been aware of misunderstanding of the F's embezzlement suspicion.