The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the article listed in Paragraph (1) of the facts constituting a false fact cannot be readily concluded as a false fact, and even if the contents of the article constitute a false fact, there is considerable reason to believe that the news of G directly experienced in relation to the investigation of the case that G voluntarily accused, and reported the truth.

In addition, even if the defendant partly modified the article's wording or system at the request of G, he did not participate in the posting of specific reporters and the distribution of newspapers, so he did not compete with G.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

In the case of “Defendant-related Articles” among the articles listed in paragraph (2) of the facts of the crime in the judgment below related to the advance election campaign, the Defendant merely copied the news report materials sent by all local media organizations located in E, and did not participate in the editing and distribution of I, but did not invite G and advance election campaign (in the case of “J-related Articles” in the first instance, the Defendant is recognized as constituting the advance election campaign, and the reason for appeal is 16 pages.

However, the court below found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

In light of the various sentencing conditions of this case, the sentence sentenced by the court below (one hundred months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

In light of the various sentencing conditions of the Prosecutor’s instant case, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant argued that this part of the appeal is identical to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, and the lower court accordingly.