The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and improper sentencing)

A. In misunderstanding the facts and legal principles, the Defendant confirmed that “the victim was informed of his ID and password, but there was no fact of voluntary withdrawal” from G, and posted the instant article for the public interest purpose of enhancing the awareness of misappropriation of personal information to Internet carpet members of “F” operated by him/her, and did not intend to defame the victim.

Nevertheless, the defendant posted the article of this case for the purpose of slandering

In light of the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence (one million won in penalty) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) “The purpose of slandering a person” under Article 70(1) of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. is to take account of the contents and nature of the relevant facts, the scope of the counter-party to whom the publication of the relevant facts was made, and the method of expression itself, and the degree of infringement of honor that may be damaged or damaged by the expression. At the same time, determination of whether there is a purpose of slandering a person is in conflict with the direction of the actor’s subjective intent, barring any special circumstances, if the alleged facts are related to public interest, it is reasonable to deem that the purpose of slandering the public interest is denied, and includes not only the public interest of the State, society, and other general public, but also the interest and interest of a particular social group or its entire members.