The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The accused shall disclose the summary of the judgment of innocence.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the defendant only speaks as stated in the facts charged to the effect that he slanders the defendant, and did not have any intent to impair E’s honor, but there is an error of misconception of facts in the original judgment that found the facts charged and convicted the defendant, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the fine of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged by the Defendant, on April 2012, damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts, such as “E is a false horse dispute, E is a false horse dispute, and E is not a false horse, and E goes to speak and goes to speak for bad faith, and her horses are heard,” even though there is no new fact that the victim E (n.e., 57 years of age) was not a false horse dispute.”

B. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the instant crime was a justifiable act that does not go against the social norms, and found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges by taking account of the evidence, including the witness E and F’s respective legal statements.

C. In a case where the public performance of defamation is acknowledged on the ground of the likelihood of spreading the determination of the party, at least dolusent intent is required as a subjective element of the constituent elements of the crime, and thus, there is a perception of the possibility of dissemination, as well as an internal intent to allow the risk. Whether the actor was aware of the possibility of dissemination should be determined by considering how to assess the possibility of dissemination if the general public is based on specific circumstances, such as the form of the act that was externally revealed and the situation of the act, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do340, Apr. 9, 2004). We examine the case, and the court below's decision.