All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) The Defendant was aware that he was working on the I Broadcasting Team with a detailed knowledge of the entire end of the instant case in preparing and publishing an advertisement bill, and that the Defendant was aware that the Defendant was working on the I Broadcasting Team, and that there was a suspicion that the U.S. Switzerland, at the time of the instant issue, would have been advertising on the suspicion of suspicion. Therefore, it was not aware that the instant advertisements contain the content that the J or K was harming the Defendant by creating and spreading the I’s theory of offering money in the process of acquiring the I’s business license, the I’s theory of personnel affairs from the Extraordinary Party, and the Defendant’s theory of bonds business operators from

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which recognized the fact that the defendant actively participated in the publication of the advertisement of this case with the knowledge of the specific contents of the advertisement of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion

B) The content of the advertisement that J or K created and disseminated I’s theory of offering money or goods in the process of acquiring I’s business rights, I’s internal view of the person from the camping party, and the Defendant’s extra-gate loan business operator theory is not false. Furthermore, even if false facts were to be false, the Defendant did not have any intent to spread false facts to the Defendant, since there was considerable reason to believe that the above content of the advertisement was not false. Nevertheless, the lower court recognized the fact that the Defendant had published false facts as indicated in the facts charged, with the knowledge that the advertisement was false, and thereby did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on false facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (C) The lower court, including K and AC, did not err by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant had published false facts as indicated in the facts charged, thereby delaying I’s opening of the country, thereby preventing the Defendant from interfering with the opening of the JJ, thereby preventing the Defendant from acting as soon as possible.