A. Although there was a fact that misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles posted a statement on the contents of the facts charged in the instant case, there was no purpose of slandering the victim.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the fine of KRW 500,000 for each of the Defendants) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Defendant B asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court, in light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the lower court, stated the facts in the form of questioning rather than a decent expression, and raised a question that the content thereof may not be true.

Even if Defendant B posted a false statement as to the victim, it became known to the unspecified number of people who were not aware of the fact about the victim, and the alleged content is very high to the degree of defamation against the victim because the victim was pregnant due to the influorial relationship with a deceased woman. Therefore, considering such overall circumstances, Defendant B rejected Defendant B’s assertion that the purpose of slandering the victim is recognized.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in a thorough manner with the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts alleged by the defendant B in the judgment below as to this part.

Next, in light of the health stand, the content and circumstances of the comments posted by Defendant A on the assertion of Defendant A, and the fact that Defendant A led to the confession of all the crimes of this case in the original trial, etc., the court below's finding Defendant A guilty by recognizing the purpose of slandering Defendant A is just and acceptable, and the judgment of the court below on this part is asserted by Defendant A.