The judgment of the court below is reversed, respectively.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles is all true, and the defendant's act was related to public interest, and there was no purpose of slandering the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the charges of this case guilty is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unfair sentencing (Articles 1 and 2: fine of KRW 1,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Upon ex officio determination, the first and second court sentenced the defendant to a fine of KRW 1,00,00 for each of the crimes in the judgment of the defendant, after completion of separate deliberation as to each of the crimes in the judgment of the defendant, and the court of the first and second court decided to hold a joint trial by combining each of the appeals cases in which the defendant filed an appeal against each of the above judgments. Since each of the crimes in the first and second court is in a concurrent relationship with the defendant under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, it shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below against the defendant was no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal.

3. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine, the lower court decided to submit the case to the Promotion Committee as an agenda item only for the existence of the H and I 2 businesses after the meeting of executive officers on August 12, 201, which was held again on August 18, 201. M, the secretary general of the Promotion Committee of this case, notified the executive officers including the Defendant, by telephone, etc. of the fact that the meeting was held, and the Defendant visited the office once.