Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment: (a) on the grounds of detailed circumstances in two pages or less of the judgment; (b) on the basis of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the contents that the Defendant posted may infringe on the victim’s social value or assessment; or (c) on the Internet for the purpose of slandering the victim by the Defendant.

The charges of this case were acquitted on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

B. (1) The “purpose of slandering a person” under Article 70(1) of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. of Information and Communications Network Act requires the intention or purpose of a perpetrator. As such, the existence of a person’s purpose of slandering a person should be determined by considering all the circumstances regarding the expression itself, including the content and nature of the relevant facts, the scope of the other party to whom the relevant fact was published, the method of expression, etc., and by comparing and considering the degree of infringement of honor that may be damaged or damaged by the expression.

In addition, since the purpose of slandering is in conflict with that for the public interest in the direction of the actor's subjective intention, it is denied the purpose of slandering if the alleged facts are about the public interest, unless there are special circumstances.

The public interest is widely related to the interest of the nation, society, and other general public, as well as to the interest and interest of a specific social group or its entire members.