The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant’s alleged contents are consistent with the truth, and the Defendant believed and publicly stated that they are true facts.

Of the information stated by the Defendant, the part indicated as “each of the instant private teaching institutes” in this case, including G, H, I, J, K, L, and M (hereinafter “each of the instant private teaching institutes”), is true in that each of the instant private teaching institutes is both the private teaching institutes operated by the victim D and the individual president is in charge of the practice.

(C) Next, the part stating that the above private teaching institutes are recruited and advertised the employees, each of the main text of the notice written by the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “each of the notice of this case”) (hereinafter referred to as “each of the main text of this case”) is different from the content and the personal information of the preparing person, some of which were deleted after the commencement of the investigation, and the contents of which are positively mentioned in the above private teaching institutes, and the victim made a profit-making and marketing.

It is true that it is highly probable to be an advertisement in light of the fact that the above private teaching institutes are in fact true in that it can be seen that the above private teaching institutes are the same as the advertisements made.

The last damage victim caused a golf practice hall;

The timely part is true that the victim is also recognized.

2) Among the information revealed by the Defendant, the above sub-paragraph and the (B) section was erroneous in the advertisement of each of the instant driving institutes, and accordingly, the victim’s honor was immediately damaged.

shall not be deemed to exist.

3) Of the information stated by the Defendant, “a rise in status” is dysnified.

The phrase “a statement of fact” cannot be deemed to be a statement of fact solely on the statement of opinion.

Even if a statement of fact is a statement of fact, it cannot be viewed as an expression that impairs the social evaluation of the victim.

4) The honor of the victim is that of the statement expressed by the Defendant.