The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant only made a factual presentation like the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below by raising 14 participants of the Internet site of this case operated by the Defendant to the employees of beauty and art establishments operated by the victim F, who paid wages, etc. properly to the employees of beauty and art establishments operated by the Defendant, and had no purpose to defame the victim F by engaging in any act for public interest.

B. The lower court’s punishment (one million won of fine) is unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. “Purpose of slandering a person” under Article 70(1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. means requiring the intent or purpose of a harming a person. The issue of whether a person has an intention to defame a person ought to be determined by considering the overall circumstances, such as the content and nature of the relevant publicly alleged fact, the scope of the other party to whom the relevant fact was published, the method of expression, etc., and the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the relevant expression.

In addition, in a case where the defendant contests subjective elements of a crime, the establishment of the crime should be determined by comprehensively considering individual circumstances such as facts, status, and work that the defendant specifically recognized at the time of expressive act.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do648 Decided August 25, 2006; 2006Do6322 Decided July 13, 2007; 2010Do14037 Decided February 28, 2013, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do6322 Decided July 13, 2007).

Judgment

In light of the contents of the facts alleged by the defendant, it seems that the purpose of the defendant's statement of facts identical to the facts stated in the judgment of the court below is to allow the victim to pay overdue wages, retirement allowances, etc. to his employees.

However, the facts alleged by the Defendant are as follows: “F must interfere with E” or “the country”.