Of the convictions of the lower judgment, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than four months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B (1) 1) misunderstanding of facts about defamation and misunderstanding of legal principles as to the facts alleged in this part of the facts charged was based on the inspection of state administration, press reports, etc., or there was a reasonable reason to believe that Defendant B was true or true, and the content thereof also is the victim I (hereinafter “victim corporation”).

As pointing out the insolvent management of personal information, the Defendant’s act of statement of facts in this part is dismissed in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Act. The first instance court convicted of this part of the charges. The first instance court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds for excluding the illegality of the crime of defamation or by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds for excluding defamation. 2) The punishment against Defendant B of the first instance court of unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor's punishment (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) against the defendant A of the first instance court (guilty against the defendant A) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. On March 6, 2014, around 11:00 on March 6, 2014, Defendant B attended with 20 false names in the Incheon Regional Police Agency that infringes on labor surveillance, labor pressure, personal information self-determination and the Ministry of Health and Welfare and the National Human Rights Commission of the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s opinion held by the National Human Rights Commission before the Jung-gu Seoul Central Human Rights Commission on the part of Defendant B concerning the mistake of facts and the misapprehension of legal principles. The facts are as follows: (a) there was no accident in which personal information is leaked in the damaged corporation; and (b) there was no fact that the Ministry of Health and Welfare had avoided the above problems; (c) even though there was no circumstance in which personal information is leaked in the damaged corporation, there was a case where personal information is leaked every

The phrase " has damaged the reputation of the victimized corporation by openly pointing out false facts."