The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (the mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles) is not sufficient to identify who is the victim, and the defendant refers to M et al., not B, the former representative of C.

Therefore, B cannot be regarded as a victim.

The victim posted an advertisement for the sale of the domain name using the expression "the strong trend of the operation of the portal adult site", and there was room for misunderstanding that the victim operates the N's Internet site.

Therefore, there was no perception that it was false that the victim would sell or purchase the elderly site to the defendant.

Since the Defendant posted the same article as written in the facts charged in the instant case for the public interest, the illegality should be excluded pursuant to Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

Judgment

In order to establish a crime of defamation as to whether a victim is a specific person, there must be the victim’s act of publicly alleging a specific false fact. However, since a person’s name is not necessarily required to explicitly indicate a false fact, if it is possible to find out whether a person’s name is specified in light of the surrounding circumstances and the overall determination of the contents of the expression, the crime of defamation

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Do1443 Decided September 26, 2014, etc.). The following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant’s writing posted on the Defendant D (hereinafter “C”) around April 8, 2017, criticizes the Defendant’s overall operation of C (hereinafter “C”) (hereinafter “instant notice”), and “the part at issue” of the notice as of April 8, 2017.

In addition, the target is C's operating team, and the victim was working as C's operating team in Seoul.