The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the publication of false facts, it is necessary for the prosecutor to actively prove the fact that the public prosecutor published is false in order to establish the crime of publishing false facts under Article 250(2) of the Public Official Election Act. The crime cannot be established solely on the basis that there is no proof

In this regard, in determining the burden of proof, a prosecutor who is the active party still bears the duty to prove the absence of a specific act at a specified time and place, as well as the proof of the absence of a certain fact, if it is about the absence of a specific act at a specified time and place.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11847, Dec. 22, 2011). Under a democratic political system, the freedom of speech is the most fundamental right, and it is not easy to say that it should be sufficiently guaranteed in the election process.

Since it is necessary and important to verify the candidate's eligibility to take charge of public service in an election for public office, the freedom of the press for the verification of eligibility shall also be guaranteed, and in the event that there are circumstances making the candidate feel illegal or unsound, the raising of a question shall be allowed, and the raising of suspicion against the candidate shall not be easily obstructed by making a public judgment before it is made.

However, if the basis is to be widely permitted to raise an imminent suspicion, it would result in not only the reputation of the candidate for diving but also the serious consequence of misleading the choice of the voters in the imminent election, which would result in a significant violation of the public interest. Therefore, even if it is deemed that the suspicion is not true, it would result in a serious doubt about the candidate's corruption.