The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and misunderstanding of legal principles against the Defendant, or by misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though all the contents of the writing printed by the Defendant were reported directly by the Defendant or by the investigator who was in charge of the investigation of the victims of the past, and there was considerable reason to believe that the Defendant was true, and that there was no purpose to slander the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In order to establish the “crime of defamation by a false statement of facts” as provided by Article 70(2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. to determine the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the criminal must publicly indicate the fact, and should have been aware that the alleged fact has undermined people’s social evaluation, and the criminal should have recognized that such fact is false. In the event that the important part here is consistent with objective facts, there is a little difference from the truth or somewhat exaggerated expression in detail.

Although it cannot be viewed as a false fact, in determining whether it is a false fact, it should be determined whether it is an important part that is not consistent with objective facts by examining the purport of the whole contents of the alleged fact.

In addition, "the purpose of slandering a person" under Article 70 (2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. is to take into account the contents and nature of the relevant timely fact, the scope of the other party to whom the relevant fact was published, and the method of expression itself.