Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the defendant. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rendered a judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the grounds of the judgment as follows.

1) Whether the Defendant’s intentional act of defamation is recognized or not, ① the Defendant sent the instant documents indicating the victim’s criminal records to B University and C University Head-General and teaching staff of each University. ② However, the main purpose of the instant documents is that the Defendant’s sending the instant documents to the head-general-general-general-class staff of each university should not work as a university teacher with many criminal records, and it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant has a criminal intent of defamation as much as the Defendant’s intent to prevent the said victim from working as a faculty member of each university. (ii) Whether the Defendant’s performance or propagation is recognized and whether there exists a Defendant’s intent to allow the Defendant to act; and (iii) whether the contents of the instant documents were aware only of the Defendant’s public performance or dissemination potential; and (iv) whether the documents were distributed or disclosed to the teachers, teaching staff members, or students of each university.

② The victim was notified of the receipt of the instant document from the above Department of University Department, and became aware of the instant case.