The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there is a fact that the Defendant conducted a demonstration as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, this constitutes a true fact with a view to eliminating unfair labor practices by notifying the victim of the wrong acts, and thus, the illegality is dismissed.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of defamation or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the crime of defamation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In order to establish a crime of defamation by publicly alleging false facts as provided by Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the criminal must publicly indicate the fact, and the time-finding should be a false fact that impairs the people’s social evaluation. In the case where the important parts are consistent with objective facts, even if there is a little difference from the truth or somewhat exaggerated expression in detail, it cannot be viewed as a false fact. However, in determining whether a false fact is a false fact, the part that is not consistent with objective facts should be determined by examining the purport of the whole contents of the publicly alleged fact.

In addition, Article 310 of the Criminal Act regarding the denial of illegality does not apply to an act constituting a crime of defamation by a statement of false facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2690, May 9, 2012). In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the content of the franchise card which the Defendant used in the demonstration was aware that the Defendant was not true as a false fact, or at least doluence is not true.