The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

, however, from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) contained false facts that “the L National Assembly member received the official fund from F”, and the Defendants posted the instant article for the purpose of making L not elected, recognizing that the above facts are false and sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, the contents of the instant article do not constitute false facts, and even if they constitute false facts, the Defendants did not recognize that they were false facts.

The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Whether the article of this case published a false fact or not, 1) Whether the relevant legal doctrine is applicable to the crime of publishing false facts under Article 250(2) of the Public Official Election Act is sufficient if the “fact” has the concreteness to the extent that it can cause the elector to make an accurate judgment on the candidate.

The term "public announcement of fact" means a report or statement of a specific past or present fact in time and space, and its contents can be proven by evidence, as a concept substitute for an expression of opinion, the content of which is a value judgment or evaluation.

The distinction between an expression and a statement of fact or between an expression of opinion or abstract judgment is not simply distinguishable by the term of the former Section, but rather by the legislative intent of ensuring the fairness of election, in mind, all the circumstances surrounding such expression, namely, the ordinary meaning and usage of language, the entire contents of the expression, the context in which the expression in question is used, the background of the expression, the method of delivery, the opposite party, the possibility of proving the contents of the expression, the possibility of proving the contents of the expression, and the candidate’s identity, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do6138, Feb. 20, 2003; 2008Do11847, Dec. 22, 2011).