All appeals are dismissed.

The Defendants’ grounds of appeal are also examined.

1. With regard to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to defamation through information and communications networks, “purposes of slandering people” under Article 70(1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. means requiring the intent or purpose of defamation. The issue of whether a person defames a person ought to be determined by comparing and comparing the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by such expression, considering the overall circumstances, such as the content and nature of the relevant publicly alleged fact, the scope of the counter-party to whom the relevant fact was published, and the method

(2) In light of the records, the court of first instance held that the Defendants violated the victim’s past behavior as well as the victim’s criticism in the hearing room, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do648, Aug. 25, 2006). In light of the above legal principles, the court below held that, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of first instance, the Defendants repeatedly posted the text and comments to the same effect by using multiple IDs and family names, and the Defendants began to post comments from July 1, 201, when the result of the personnel order was announced, and the Defendants did not take a legitimate method of raising an objection through the hearing room, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do648, Aug. 25, 2006).

2. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles as to amendments to indictment, the court shall include the facts charged within the scope consistent with the facts charged.