We reverse the judgment of the court below.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of four million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the judgment of the court below No. 2), Defendant’s statement is not false, but is true, even if it is not true, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Defendant is true, and is also consistent with the interests of the members of the village fishing village, and thus, illegal as it is for the public interest.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of defamation among the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

2) Illegal sentencing (as to the judgment of the court below), each sentence of the court below (2 million won by each fine) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence No. 2 of the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor, the judgment of the court below was rendered ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor, and the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below against the defendant in the judgment of the court below, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings against the judgment of the court of second instance. The first and second rulings against the defendant in the judgment of the court of second instance are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination as to the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and the following circumstances were revealed by the Defendant, and the Defendant also distributed printed materials, recognizing that the content was false and that the Defendant was false

It is reasonable to view it.

(1) The defendant is the mother of the victim F.