The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (guilty part) Defendant distributed the instant explanatory name that was distributed by Defendant to 290 members of the National Assembly, and distributed the instant explanatory name only by marking “friendly” to 290 members of the National Assembly. Thus, performance necessary to establish the crime of defamation is not recognized.

B) There was no perception that the content of the instant explanatory statement does not constitute false facts, and that there was a considerable reason to believe that the Defendant was a false fact.

C) The Defendant: (a) prepared and delivered the instant explanatory statement to the members of the National Assembly in order to bring about his suppression by revealing the truth; and (b) there was no intention to defame the members of the National Assembly.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the prosecutor 1) found the Defendant’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts in relation to Articles 3, 4, and 5 as indicated in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, since the court below rendered not guilty on the grounds that it cannot be readily concluded as false facts as to this part of the facts charged, the court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, performance refers to the state in which an unspecified or multiple number of people can be recognized, which is the element of the crime of defamation of honor as to whether the Defendant’s performance is recognized or not.

Even if there is a possibility of spreading to many and unspecified persons, the requirements for performance are satisfied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do6515, Oct. 23, 2008). The court below held that the other party who distributed the instant explanatory name constitutes a majority of National Assembly members who are 290 National Assembly members.