Therefore, in full view of the above points, the Defendants were aware that the contents of the instant report were false, and cannot be deemed to be for the public interest of schools.

Nevertheless, the lower court which acquitted the Defendants of the charge on the grounds that it is difficult to see the content of the personal information as false, and that the act of attaching the personal information constitutes an act consistent with the public interest and thus constitutes an unlawful act. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine

2. The Defendants charged with the instant case were the F major students of the Daegu Arts University, and the victims G were the professors of the same department.

On August 17, 2015, the Defendants, at least 30 places, such as the building entrance, bulletin board, and the deputy chief of the Daegu Arts University’s main building, which was located in 202, Glang-gun, G professor, G professor, who has purchased a false and conscientious conscience, damaged the reputation of the victim by attaching a false false personal personal personal personal personal personal personal personal personal personal personal personal personal personal personal personal information that “the victim was not subject to sexual indecent act from the F Department, but caused a false sexual indecent act.”

3. Determination

A. The court below should have duly adopted the judgment of the court below, despite the fact that the Defendants were sexually sexually indecent in order to constitute a false fact, and that the Defendants knew that the Defendants were sexually sexually indecent, and that the Defendants were attaching a warning to the purport that the victims filed a false complaint while recognizing that the Defendants were sexually sexually indecent.