All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendants (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) sent the e-mail of the contents as stated in the judgment of the court below, the above acts lack the performance required to establish the crime of defamation, and the above e-mail includes contents that may impair the honor of the victim.

Therefore, the illegality of the defendants' act is excluded as a legitimate act that does not go against the social rules of Article 310 of the Criminal Code or Article 20 of the Criminal Code because the defendants' act is solely for the public interest.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which recognized the defendants as the crime of defamation is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing) and the lower court’s sentence [the Defendants: each suspended sentence (the sentence to be suspended: one million won per fine)] are deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendants’ act of sending the e-mail of the contents indicated in the lower judgment against the Defendants’ act of defamation was committed, and there was no intention to impair a specific person’s reputation, and there was lack of performance

The argument is asserted.

However, the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, i.e., the Defendants asserted to the effect that the Defendants tried to verify whether they decided to liquidate F with the J, known to the largest shareholder of F, as the president of interest. However, the e-mail sent by the Defendants included the content that: (a) the injured party has carried out the business on an exclusive basis; (b) the dialogue between the employees and the president has not been carried out; and (c) the management crisis has occurred due to the management responsibility; and (b) the Defendants did not specify part of the e-mail sent by the Defendants as argued by the Defendants.