The guilty portion shall be reversed.

Of the facts charged of this case, Defendant A on September 4, 2008.

A. Defendant A, B, C, and C’s act in this part of the facts charged was conducted for the purpose of monitoring and filing a criminal complaint against the disciplinary committee members to determine whether the disciplinary committee members’ resolution was unfair disciplinary action. It is consistent with objective facts. Even if the Defendants’ act constitutes defamation under Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act, it constitutes a crime of defamation under Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act, and thus, the illegality under Article 310 of the Criminal Act should be avoided. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (2) The lower court found Defendant B’s act in this part of the facts charged was committed for the purpose of promoting the correct operation of the F University. Even if the above Defendants’ act constitutes defamation under Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act, it constitutes a crime of defamation under Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act, and thus, constitutes an unlawful determination or misapprehension of the legal doctrine that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Prosecutor 1) In light of the fact that each act described in this part of the facts charged by Defendant A and B with respect to the violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information and Communications Network Utilization and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Defamation part) (the part concerning Defendant A and B) was mainly related to the expression of criticism and dissatisfaction against the F University or school juristic person AD, the purpose of defamation is recognized, and the above Defendants posted the instant text without making any additional efforts to confirm the facts.