The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (legal scenario) is that the Defendant has already distributed the wrong part that has a huge impact on the local community for the right to know and the public interest of the residents, based on the contents already reported from several media media, to a certain extent, and thus does not constitute defamation.

2. Article 310 of the Criminal Act provides that “When the alleged facts relate to the public interest” refers to an objective point of view, and an actor is also required to explicitly state the facts for the public interest, and such facts should also be objectively stated for the public interest. It includes not only the public interest of the State, society, and other general public, but also the interest and interest of a specific social group or a group of its members. Whether the alleged facts relate to the public interest or not should be determined by comparing and considering all the circumstances pertaining to the expression itself, such as the content and nature of the alleged facts, the scope of the party against which the publication of the relevant facts was made, the method of expression, etc., and at the same time by comparing and comparing the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression.

(1) The court below rejected the Defendant’s above assertion on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal; (b) however, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined; and (c) the Defendant’s above act did not constitute “public interest” on the ground that the Defendant’s act was not “the fact that it constitutes an error,” in light of the circumstances leading up to the above act, purpose, name, description II, and III; (d) the extent of the other party’s distribution; (e) the method of expression; and (e) the degree of reputation infringement that may be damaged by expression. In light of the reasoning of the judgment below, a thorough examination is conducted with the record