All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The assertion that there is no false fact or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) E, Seoul Council member E, and the National Assembly member I made an illegal solicitation or abuse of authority to an investigation agency in connection with a criminal case between Defendant A and F is true. Even if this is false, even if this is false, the Defendants were to have justifiable grounds to believe it as true, so there is no crime of violation of the Public Official Election Act due to publication of false facts, defamation due to publication of false facts, and violation of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Disclosure (Defamation). (2) The assertion that there was no purpose to prevent the election of Defendant B from being elected (Defendant B) was only intended to reveal the suspicion raised by Defendant A, but it was not the purpose to prevent the election of the National Assembly member, a candidate for the National Assembly member, from being elected. Therefore, there is no room to establish a crime of violation of the

3) The Defendants asserted that there was no perception of illegality (Defendant B) filed a report on the assembly with the Guro Police Station in accordance with due process and held the assembly. The Defendants recognized that their actions did not constitute a violation of the Public Official Election Act, because they were aware that they did not fall under the name of banner, etc. in compliance with the direction of police officers belonging to the Guro Police Station and employees of the Guro Election Commission. Accordingly, the Defendants cannot be held liable for the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the publication of false facts or the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the violation of the Election Act due to the violation of the Election Act for the sake of public interest. (4) The Defendants asserted that there was no purpose of slandering the Defendants (Defendant B) posted E, I-related written comments on the website, etc. of the D organization for the public

Therefore, there is no violation of Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection.

5..