The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence shall be suspended for the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant’s writing posted does not specify the victim, it cannot be deemed that the victim’s reputation was damaged due to the above writing.

B. The part on the facts charged in the instant case among the comments posted by the Defendant was intended to hear opinions from other persons while indicating the Defendant’s inferred side or raising suspicion. As such, it does not constitute a case where a statement of facts was made in the crime of defamation through an information and communications network.

C. Examining the entire content of the article posted by the Defendant, including the part as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, this article concerns the public interest and did not aim to defame the victim by pointing out the problems about the return procedure of 11 A.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In order to establish the crime of defamation against the assertion that did not specify the victim, the act of defamation against the specific person is not necessarily required to indicate false facts with the victim’s name clearly, but also, if it is possible to find out the contents of false facts without the victim’s name comprehensively and comprehensively with the surrounding circumstances, it constitutes defamation against the specific person.

(See Supreme Court Decision 82Do1256 Decided November 9, 1982, and Supreme Court Decision 201Do11226 Decided March 27, 2014, etc.). In other words, the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the trial court, namely, the Defendant indicated the victim as “D (state)/C” in the article posted by him/her (hereinafter “instant article”) and indicated the victim as “D (state/C)/C” in “C” and the Defendant’s end of “E” between the seller and the Defendant, the name is completed, and the victim’s real name is returned, and part of the victim’s English tag operated by the victim was indicated.