A. Contrary to the facts stated in the facts of the lower judgment, the Defendant obtained approval from the victim non-Brops Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-Brops”) that the sales event of the instant gift certificates (hereinafter “instant gift certificates”) was held. Therefore, the Defendant’s comments on the company’s website and Internet NAC (hereinafter “C”) and Internet news articles of Internet F, as stated in the same purport, did not constitute a false fact, but did not intend to defame the victim as being posted for the public interest of the buyers who suffered damage due to the victim’s acts.

Therefore, the violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (Defamation) is not established and the intention of interfering with business is not recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting each of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In determining whether the facts disclosed under Article 70(2) of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. concerning the assertion of misunderstanding of facts are false, if the contents of the relevant fact differs significantly from the truth or are somewhat exaggerated to the extent of the whole purport of the relevant fact, it shall not be deemed false, but if the important part is not consistent with objective facts, it shall be deemed false (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do6343, Nov. 15, 2012).