The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine) The Defendant only expressed his opinion that there is a suspicion of embezzlement of the victim’s clan property through the instant inducement, and it does not indicate the fact.

2) The Defendant discovered a victim’s embezzlement charge on the grounds of various data and then informed the executive officers thereof. This is not an expression of false facts, and constitutes a case where the public interest is solely related to true facts.

3) Even if the defendant's act constitutes a statement of false facts, the defendant misleads him/her as true facts, notifies him/her for the public interest, and there were reasonable grounds for such misunderstanding.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of the instant case, and there was an error of misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The facts constituting the elements of a crime charged in a criminal trial, whether subjective or objective, are the prosecutor’s burden of proof. As such, in a case prosecuted for a crime of defamation by a statement of false facts under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, the fact that a person’s social evaluation was revealed was undermined, and that the alleged facts are not consistent with objective truth, and that the Defendant was aware that the alleged facts were false, and that the Defendant knew that they were false (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do13718, Sept. 4, 2014). Comprehensively taking into account the evidence duly examined and adopted, the fact that the Defendant had distributed the printed materials to the following clans after reviewing the documents submitted by the victim after the completion of his/her term of office.

However, the title of the instant printed matter does not conclude the Defendant’s embezzlement as “as to the suspicion of embezzlement, etc. of former executives E”.