The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the overall purport of the article written by the Defendant on the summary of the grounds of appeal, the Defendant is not a statement of fact constituting the elements of the crime of defamation, but is merely an expression of personal opinion. The Defendant, in dialogueing with the president of the merchants’ association with the president, etc., written the instant notice on the basis of facts, materials posted on the Internet, and facts of friendship with the victim, etc., and thus, did not have awareness of false facts.

Since Sungnam-si prepared a notice of this case for the purpose of pursuing public interest, such as resolving the grievances of merchants with respect to those that have not significantly changed since the establishment of the Seoul Metropolitan Area Revitalization Foundation, it was not aimed to slander the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the trial court, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged is justifiable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or of misapprehending of legal principles as alleged by the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

① The main content of the notice of this case written by the Defendant is the purport that the damaged company, exclusively with D and E, or with one billion won or more, has been entering into a contract for the event of this case, and the Defendant did not publish an article for the purpose of understanding the authenticity of the above part, but appears to have expressed an objection or complaint under the previous title that it was past or present. In light of the above, the Defendant indicated the specific facts through the notice of this case.

may be filed.

② According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 submitted by the Defendant, the company operated by the victim is I.