A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, although the Defendant posted each posted materials on the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the judgment of the court below, in light of the circumstances and contents, the Defendant did not have the intention of defamation, and all of them did not have the purpose of defamation for public

However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) Fraud or misunderstanding of the legal doctrine) fraud (2016 Gohap 260, 2016 Gohap 260), despite credibility, the victim’s statement to the effect that the Defendant lent money as a litigation cost, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B) Violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation) through a false statement of facts (Article 2017 Gohap63 of the facts charged in 2017 Gohap63) was aware of the fact that the Defendant was false, but the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. "Purpose of slandering a person" under Article 61 (1) of the former Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Protection, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. to determine the Defendant's misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine is required for the intention or purpose, and it is in conflict with the direction of subjective intention of the actor for public interest. Therefore, if the alleged facts are related to the public interest, unless there are special circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the objective of slandering the alleged facts is denied, and "the case where the timely facts are related