The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

When the defendant does not pay a fine, 100.

1. In full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant did not have a close relation to E; and (b) the Defendant’s direct motive to contact E was not to warn E of the risk that may arise; (c) the Defendant intentionally committed the instant crime of defamation rather than for public interest.

2. Determination

A. On June 12, 2017, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case was written by the Defendant at the “C” agency operated by the Defendant located in the Gu, Si, Si, Gu, and the Defendant only submitted a resume to be employed as an employee in C through the introduction of the victim as a member of the victim D, and that he/she was able to sell a mobile phone from the D store to E who is not specially related with the Defendant.

In a easy sense, embezzlement of public funds was made.

D. The same shall apply to this time.

The victim’s reputation was damaged by openly pointing out facts to the purport that “Sarih L.” was a harsh lending of money.

B. On the grounds delineated below, the lower court’s judgment did not constitute an offense of defamation, since the Defendant acted as to the public interest by committing the same act as the facts charged.

The decision was determined.

Article 310 of the Criminal Act provides that the act of defamation by a statement of fact is true and solely for the public interest (Article 310 of the Criminal Act). Here, the term “when the public interest is solely for the public interest” includes not only the public interest of the State, society, and other general public, but also matters related to community life, even for a specific social group (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Do3160, Jun. 22, 1993; 2006Do2074, Dec. 14, 2007). According to the records, the Defendant was indicted for embezzlement by arbitrary sale of mobile phones kept by D for the Defendant (Seoul District Court Decision 2017Dadan1865, Jul. 1865, 201). The Defendant was aware of D’s embezzlement.