The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since a mistake of facts did not intend to publicly inform the Defendant of the aforementioned remarks at the time when the Defendant made the same remarks as the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not have intention to defame, and the Defendant’s alleged facts constitute a matter of public interest such as granting fair credits, and thus, illegality is dismissed.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail under the title “determination on the Defendant’s and his defense counsel’s assertion” in the judgment of the court below, on the ground that the Defendant alleged that there was a mistake of facts, and the Defendant’s statement cannot be deemed as a public interest, and thus, the illegality of the Defendant’s assertion is not dismissed, in light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

① At the time and place of the decision of the court below, the Defendant: (a) disrupted the privacy of the victim; (b) shared with male-child organizations; (c) obtained credits in a negative manner in relation to professors; and (d) stated that one person’s demonstration would also be conducted in front of the school sentiments; and (b) the above remarks are very extreme expressions sufficient to undermine the social evaluation of the victim.

In addition, the defendant made the above speech at a university department office where other persons are open to the public, and the defendant can recognize that other persons in the department office are able to hear their opinions.