The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

I. Summary of the grounds for appeal

1. With respect to the perception of the falsity and falsity of the contents of the interview published by the Defendant, the following contents were clearly false: “The Maritime Police and Rescue Officers provided a wall and dialogue with the survivors; “The Maritime Safety and Rescue Officers did not provide support to the civilian diving and prevented them from doing the rescue work of the civilian diving department;” “The field rescue unit members did not want to take the missing’s family members;” and “the Maritime Police sent a speech to the private rescue unit during a short time,” and “the Defendant was aware of the falsity of the above contents of the interview.”

Nevertheless, the court below judged that the contents of the writing and interview posted by the defendant are not false, or that it was difficult for the defendant to recognize the falsity, and thus, erred in mistake of facts.

2. As to whether or not to recognize the purpose of defamation, the purpose of defamation is recognized since the Defendant maliciously slandered victims by pointing out false information in order to impose on himself even though the Defendant had paid attention that he should not talk about the false contents before an interview.

Nevertheless, the court below judged that the defendant had an interview for the main purpose of facilitating the rescue work of public-private partnership by informing the public of the state of the F-private partnership situation, and judged that the main motive or purpose of the interview was for the public interest, and thus it is difficult to conclude that there was an intention to slander the victims.

3. As to the recognition of defamation against the victim K, the Defendant posted false facts to the effect that the victim K prevented the rescue operation of the private diving body and renounced the salvage operation despite the existence of the surviving person, and slandered the victim K in bad faith by interview.

Nevertheless, it is not possible.