All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In order to establish defamation by publicly alleging false facts through an information and communications network under Article 61(2) of the former Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (amended by Act No. 8778 of Dec. 21, 2007), as to the grounds of appeal against Defendant A, such publicly alleged facts should be a fall in the social evaluation of people and should be recognized as false, and the Defendant should be aware that such facts are false.

In determining whether the alleged facts are false, the purport of the whole contents of the alleged facts shall be examined in determining whether the alleged facts are false. In a case where the material facts are consistent with the objective facts, even if there is a somewhat exaggerated expression that differs from the truth in the detailed facts, it cannot be viewed as false facts. Meanwhile, the defendant's awareness that the alleged facts are false, i.e., the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the criminal intent.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do1538 Decided June 1, 2007, and 2009Do4949 Decided October 28, 2010, etc.). The lower court upheld the first instance court that acquitted Defendant A, on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as false facts or as having recognized the falsity of the content thereof, on the ground that Defendant A, a professor of MU, published the same article on the bulletin board of professor at the same university with intent to defame the professors of the same university, thereby impairing I by openly pointing out false facts through an information and communications network.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the above legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the above judgment of the court below is just, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the law of logic and experience.