The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In a mistake of facts or an election campaign by misunderstanding of legal principles, freedom of expression should be widely recognized in respect of public figures and public areas.

Since false facts as to the C candidate were widely spread on the Internet at the time of the instant case, it was difficult for the Defendant to recognize them as false, and there was no purpose of slandering the public interest.

In the case of victim P P, AI was a non-trustable organization, such as making false statements as conscience receipt and causing controversy in the compilation of Q, so there was a substantial reason for the Defendant to believe that the manipulation of sun-dried photographs is a victim P.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the freedom of expression under the Constitution, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the freedom of expression, thereby recognizing that the Defendant posted each of the instant comments for the purpose of slandering

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing [6 months of imprisonment with prison labor for each violation of the Public Official Election Act, and four months of imprisonment with prison labor for each violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (Defamation)] is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant asserted the same facts as the reasons for appeal as above, and the lower court, while sufficiently explaining the various circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the Defendant was well aware of the fact that the content of each posted on the facts constituting a crime in the lower judgment was false, and even if he believed the content of the above posted materials to be true, it is difficult to view that there was a justifiable reason to believe that there was a reasonable reason to believe that such posted materials were true, and that such posted materials are in accord with the public interest.

It is also considered that the protection of freedom of expression or freedom of press is within the scope of protection.