Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out facts with the aim of slandering the victim.

2. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

A. The Defendant cannot be deemed to have specified the victim as much as the victim can be identified by referring only to “F”.

B. The defendant did not have the purpose of slandering.

3. “Purpose of slandering a person” under Article 70(1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. shall be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression in light of the following: (a) the content and nature of the relevant statement; (b) the scope of the other party to whom the publication of the relevant fact was made; and (c) the method of expression itself; and (d) the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression.

In addition, since the purpose of slandering is contrary to the direction of the actor's subjective intention that is for the public interest, it is reasonable to view that the purpose of slandering is denied unless there are any special circumstances, in a case where the alleged facts are related to the public interest. Here, "in a case where the alleged facts are related to the public interest" is related to the public interest objectively when viewed the alleged facts objectively, and thus, an actor should also indicate the facts for the public interest subjectively. However, matters concerning the public interest are widely related to not only to the interests of the State, society, and other general public, but also to a specific social group or its entire members' interest and