The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine) 1) Of the major evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, there are many parts or omissions in the field Plaintiff prepared or omitted from the actual remarks, and the Defendant made a statement identical to the facts charged (hereinafter “instant statement”) on the basis thereof.

It shall not be readily concluded.

The speaking of this case was a candidate who was a party L. at the time.

M It is nothing more than an expression about the candidate's specific, but it is nothing more than a L party representing the vice-story. 2) Even if this case's speech was a candidate at the time of this case's speech.

M Even if it is about a candidate, only a simple expression of opinion or a political investigation comparing the secondary layer represented by L parties other than an individual and the common people symbolizing by the J market, and the defendant publicly stated the specific facts.

shall not be deemed to exist.

3) At the time of the instant speech, the Defendant had no intention to publish false facts in the Defendant, and did not have known that the content of the instant speech was false, and there was no intention to attract M candidates.

4) The instant speech is permissible under the social norms, and constitutes a justifiable act that does not go against the social norms.

B. The lower court’s sentence (2.5 million won suspended sentence) against the Defendant by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion that the instant remarks did not indicate M candidates, the lower court acknowledged that the contents of the instant remarks are referred to as M candidates, in full view of various circumstances, including the accuracy and credibility of the Plaintiff at the site prepared by O during the fourth 21 to eleven 11th 17th tier of the judgment, the details and contents of the instant remarks, the witness’s statement at the site, and the article, etc.

Accordingly, the defendant's assertion was rejected.

Various circumstances acknowledged by the court below.