The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor on the gist of the grounds for appeal, the Defendant may borrow only a part of the articles previously written by the damaged person for the purpose of slandering and recognize the fact that the victim is more disadvantageous to the injured person.

Therefore, with a view to slandering, the Defendant revealed facts openly through the information and communications network or damaged the honor of the victim by disclosing false information.

2. Judgment 1) The lower court acquitted the Defendant on the following grounds.

① The Defendant prepared the instant sign by means of inserting a letter on the victim’s actual written and inserting his/her opinion on the relevant notice.

② The Defendant partially distorted or used false expressions while entering his/her opinion.

However, given that the notice itself is directly prepared by the victim and is consistent with objective facts, the notice of this case prepared by the defendant as a whole is false, or the defendant is aware of false facts.

It is difficult to see it.

③ Also, in light of the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, the purport, contents, and method of posting the instant notice, and the degree of infringement of honor suffered by the victim, etc., the purpose of posting the instant notice is the publication of facts corresponding to the interests and interests of the aforementioned bulletin board users or the entire members of the said bulletin board users.

Therefore, it is difficult to recognize the purpose of defamation against the defendant.

2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court’s judgment in addition to the lower court’s determination, the Defendant’s instant notice is related to the public interest, and even if there were other private interest purposes or motives incidental thereto, such circumstances alone.