The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the contents and remarks of a banner posted by the Defendant by mistake of facts as to each defamation are all consistent with the facts, it did not constitute false facts, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby impairing the victim’s reputation, as alleged in the facts charged.

B. The Defendant made a lawful demonstration after reporting the assembly, and did not interfere with the work of the victim, and did not have any intention to interfere with the work of the victim, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby obstructing the work of the victim.

C. In light of the legal principles as to the violation of the Outdoor Advertisements, etc. Control Act, the instant banner was used at an assembly legally reported, and thus, it does not constitute a violation of the above Act since Article 8 subparagraph 4 of the Outdoor Advertisements, etc. Control Act does not apply to the provisions on permission, reporting, prohibition, or restriction

Even if the crime of violation of the above law is established, the defendant received the answer that the banner used for an assembly reported after questioning in advance with the Ministry of Public Administration and Security and the National Police Agency is not illegal, and put up a banner like the facts charged, and there is a justifiable reason to believe that the defendant does not constitute a crime even if he was reported or permitted in advance, the illegality is dismissed in accordance with Article 16 of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the relevant legal principles, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts as to each defamation, the lower court acknowledged that the Defendant damaged the reputation of the victim by pointing out false facts as stated in the facts charged, comprehensively taking account of the evidence cited by the lower court.

Furthermore, the lower court on the grounds delineated below.