A. In the e-mail sent by the Defendant for a false statement of false facts, the part stating that “the president has reduced the 36% of the professor’s allowance by itself” or “the president has disbursed the 14 million won with the elementary school teachers in the same literature as the inter-school membership fee” is false, and the Defendant stated the above false facts with the intent to defame the victim.

B. At the time when the Defendant sent out a timely e-mail with which the victim was subject to criminal punishment and sent the e-mail to the victim, the Defendant had the intent to slander the victim.

C. In light of the background, motive, etc. of the Defendant’s preparation of this part of the e-mail, the offense of insult of this case is against the social norms.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined on the part of defamation of false facts: (a) with respect to the content of the e-mail that the victim voluntarily reduced the costs of benefits; (b) it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s expression “original” used in the above e-mail is merely an expression of opinion with a value judgment or evaluation and is merely an expression of opinion with the content of value determination or evaluation; (c) such expression does not constitute defamation premised on a statement of fact; and (d) the president, the victim, has the authority to compile budget for the project plan, including payment of research funds, etc.; (e) the president, as an ex officio director of the sexual conference, has a structure that can play a leading role in the determination of the budget; and (e) the victim refused the request by the Defendant, etc., who disclosed the minutes of the board of directors of the sexual conference; and (e) on the grounds that there seems to have been considerable reasons to determine that the benefits cost of the Defendant was reduced depending on the victim’s will, the president, the group of participants of the briefing sessions in the year