The judgment below

Among them, the part against the Defendant (Counterclaim) regarding the main lawsuit is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the main claim

A. (1) As to the part of the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”), the lower court acknowledged that the Defendant posted the same writing as indicated in its ruling in his E account over a total of 13 times from January 21, 2013 to February 16, 2014, on the following grounds: (i) the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) was suspected of pro-North Korea; (ii) the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) was aware of the existence of pro-North Korea, “pro-North Korea,” “pro-North Korea,” “pro-North Korea,” “pro-North Korea,” “pro-North Korea,” “pro-North Korea,” “pro-North Korea,” and “pro-North Korea,” “pro-North Korea,” and “pro-North Korea,” and “pro-North Korea,” and “pro-North Korea,” and “pro-North Korea’s tort liability,” were established on the following grounds:

① The term “pro-North Korea” has an irregular and fatal meaning that since the past AV party criticizes North Korea to the effect that it has no autonomy and autonomy in relation to the party’s policy or ideological direction, North Korea may be pro-enemy in the same department as the North Korea, and may be subject to criminal punishment by committing an act denying the identity of the Republic of Korea and the basic constitutional order.

If so, in the reality of our country where the South and North Korea are hostile and the National Security Act is enforced, the crime is committed if a specific person is classified as North Korea in an unfortunate manner.