The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It was true that the defendant prepared comments as stated in the facts charged of this case by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, but there was no perception of falsity at the time when the defendant prepared the above comments.

In addition, the defendant's writing of the above comments did not have the purpose of slandering as an act for the public interest.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (three million won by fine) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the significant facts in this court, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of ten months of imprisonment with prison labor for defamation, etc. at Jeju District Court on October 11, 2018 and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 21, 2018, and the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for special larceny, etc. at the same court on January 15, 2020, and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 23, 2020.

Therefore, each crime of defamation against the defendant and the above crime of defamation against which the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive (Provided, That the offense of insult as of October 13, 2019, which became final and conclusive on January 23, 2020, was committed after the judgment became final and conclusive on December 21, 2018, and thus cannot be judged concurrently with other crimes) are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the judgment of the court below should be sentenced to punishment for each crime of the judgment of the court below in consideration of equity with the case where the judgment is to be rendered simultaneously in accordance with the main sentence of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, so in this regard

However, although the above reasons for ex officio reversal exist, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. In regard to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant is also the same as this part of the judgment below.