All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds for appeal by the defendant

A. As to the first ground of appeal, the “fact” as referred to in the crime of publishing false facts under Article 250(1) of the Public Official Election Act is sufficient if it is sufficient that the elector has the existence of the structure to the extent that it can cause the elector to correct the accurate judgment of the candidate. The publication of the “fact” refers to a report or statement on specific past or current facts, time and space, and the content of the expression can be proven by evidence.

The distinction between whether a certain expression is a statement of fact or 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, it should be comprehensively determined by taking into account 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 was used, the developments leading up to the expression, 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 Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11847, Dec. 22, 2011, etc.). On the grounds stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that, on the whole, the Defendant’s assertion that the contents disclosed by the name of this case cannot be deemed to have simply expressed his opinion, and on the basis of its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that it was possible to concretely prove the past facts that the Defendant received the “reright under the Law” or the “reward” under Article 3

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the distinction between publication of false facts and expression of opinion.