The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant did not recognize that the text posted by the Defendant was false, misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (hereinafter “instant text”) was false, the Defendant did not have any intention to interfere with the business of prisoners of war by false facts and to violate the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection

In addition, the defendant did not have a purpose of slandering the writing of this case for the public interest.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the facts charged of this case guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehending legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment with labor for eight months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles on the assertion of facts is that the "purpose of slandering people" as provided for in Article 61 (2) of the former Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (amended by Act No. 8778 of Dec. 21, 2007) requires the intention or purpose of a harm, and whether there exists a purpose of slandering a person should be determined by considering the overall circumstances concerning the expression itself, such as the content and nature of the relevant statement, 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 expression, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2422, Jul. 10, 2008). 2) The court below also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and the court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion by giving detailed statement on the summary of evidence of the judgment below.

A thorough review of the judgment of the court below by comparison with records, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, i.e., the defendant, as follows: