The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of two million won, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are most identical to the basic facts stated by the Defendants in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the facts charged against contradictions. However, the lower court recognized that Defendant A, with respect to Article 1 (2) of the instant facts charged, damaged the honor of victims by openly pointing out facts (Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act) by publicly alleging facts (Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act), while, with respect to Article 2 (2) of the facts charged, the Defendants conspired with the Defendants to defame the victims by openly pointing out false facts (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act) and thereby damaged the reputation of the victims (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act). This is a contradictory fact in itself.

2) The Defendants merely stated a true fact with regard to a false factual fact (Article 2 of the facts charged in this case). As such, the crime of defamation by a false factual fact under Article 2 of the facts charged in this case is not established.

3) The facts charged in this case’s instant case’s instant case’s grounds for illegality rejection revealing the entire true facts, and the Defendants solely committed an act identical to the facts charged for the public interest (interest of U.S. Village). Thus, all of them should be dismissed by Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (Defendant A: a fine of two million won, Defendant B: a fine of one million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The term “statement of fact” in the crime of defamation of reputation related to the assertion of contradictions in the U.S. is an expression of opinion with the content of a value judgment or evaluation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Do2956, Mar. 24, 1998). Therefore, in order to constitute a crime of defamation of reputation by a factual presentation under Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act as “an act that defames a person by publicly alleging a fact,” a statement of fact should be deemed not “a mere expression of opinion,” but “a statement of fact.”