The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In regard to a mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (1) as to a candidate’s 516 military coupa and his/her political right, the Defendant’s personal opinion is not only an expression of fact, but also an expression of fact.

(2) The Defendant did not have the purpose of Da candidate’s 516 Military C’s remarks or defense remarks about the 516 Military C’s military coupa and oil regime, or of impairing C’s candidates or preventing them from being elected.

(3) The Defendant did not have any legal knowledge about the provisions of the Public Official Election Act related to Internet comments, and did not have any awareness that this constitutes a criminal act.

(4) Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts charged in this case or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. (1) Whether a statement constitutes a “statement of fact” under Article 251 of the Public Official Election Act (hereinafter “statement of fact” under the main sentence of Article 251 of the Public Official Election Act refers to a statement of opinion, the term “statement of fact” under the text of Article 251 of the Public Official Election Act refers to a report or statement of specific past or current facts, time and space, and its contents can be proved by evidence. Whether a statement is a fact or an opinion should be determined by considering the overall circumstances, such as the ordinary meaning and usage of language, possibility of proof, the context in which the statement is used, social circumstances in which the expression was made, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do4595, Jun. 14, 2002). The alleged facts are likely to infringe on a specific person’s social value or evaluation, and the time, place, and means of such fact.