The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles) is the facts constituting an offense in the judgment of the court below, which became final and conclusive (Supreme Court Decision 2013Da446 Decided December 6, 2013, and the defendant appealed against the above judgment, but the Daegu District Court dismissed the defendant's appeal on September 5, 2014 (Seoul District Court Decision 2013No4142). The defendant re-appealed on January 29, 2015, but the Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2014Do12727) and the above judgment became final and conclusive on January 29, 2015.

Since the final judgment of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "final judgment of this case") is a single comprehensive crime, the judgment of acquittal against the defendant should be pronounced, but the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant on the ground that the facts constituting the final judgment of this case and the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below are in a substantive concurrent relationship

2. Determination

A. The Defendant is the representative director of “C”, a living information newspaper.

1) On May 1, 2013, the Defendant published the F Examination in Nam-gu E (State) on May 1, 2013, and arrested 220 F newspaper distribution boxes established in G and H in March 9, 2013, and was engaged in the same industry and was engaged in the same industry, and they were arrested in CCTV the images that moved to the 6th new wall and destroyed the F newspaper distribution in a improved manner.

From that time to May 22, 2013, an article containing the same content was inserted in F Newspaper five times in total, as in the list of crimes in the lower judgment.

On the same day, the Defendant issued such a newspaper, and distributed 10,000 in front of the J pharmacy, etc. in the north-gu I in the port of the above day, thereby undermining the honor of the KBD by openly pointing out facts.

2) The Defendant issued F newspaper at the same place as, June 19, 2013, with a view to slandering the LAD, and issued the F newspaper at the same time as, “from the past year (from March 9, 2013).”