A. The Defendant merely cited the original text without processing it by putting a letter posted by another person on the Twitter “Twitter” (RT).

(hereinafter “the instant retweet”). This is merely a suspicion or opinion on the original text, and cannot be deemed as a “statement of fact,” and the intention of defamation cannot be acknowledged.

B. The retweet of this case cannot be viewed as false, and there was no awareness about the falsity.

C. The Defendant believed that the retweet of this case was true and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the retweet of this case was true.

The retweet of this case is not only related to the public interest but also belonging to the area of freedom of expression, so there is no illegality.

2. Determination

A. Based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s refeit act constitutes a statement of fact that does not constitute a “statement of fact,” and that the Defendant’s refeit act constitutes a statement of fact that may sufficiently undermine the social assessment of the victims, rather than a mere statement of opinion, and that the intent of defamation is also recognized.

As the court below properly decided, the statement of fact in the crime of defamation is not asked whether the publicly alleged person alleged the fact was tested by himself or not, and whether the other person alleged that he or she was aware of the fact.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on facts or by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged by the Defendant, thereby adversely comparing the reasoning of the lower judgment with the records. In so doing, it is justifiable to have determined that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on facts or by misapprehending the legal principles on the part of the Defendant.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The instant case.