All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) In the speech of this case by misunderstanding the legal principles, all of the three cases pointed out by the Defendant do not constitute a defamation, as they are true or correct in historical facts.

【The sentence of the lower court (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable in light of the fact that the place of the instant speech by the Defendant on unreasonable sentencing was the place of the election office, which did not affect the election, and the Defendant’s mistake is against his own fault.

B. In light of the nature of the instant case and the nature of the Defendant’s crime, the sentence of the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The “defluence” under Article 251 of the Public Official Election Act regarding Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine refers to the reduction or elimination of another party without justifiable grounds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1936, Jun. 25, 2009). The statement does not affect whether the content of the statement constitutes a “defluence” even if it is historical truth or fact-finding.

In light of the above, it is reasonable to see that the contents of the speech in this case, such as the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, is a scambling, because it is a scambling, without any justifiable reason,

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant appears to have made the instant speech contingently at the time of the instant case. Of the instant speech contents, the part concerning “J doctoral degree” from M near J, and the part concerning “I denial” directly from H N’s wife N that directly expressed the speech at the time, and the Defendant seems to have believed the content of the instant speech to be true, the Defendant’s mistake reflects to a certain extent, and in light of the place of the instant speech or the other party.