The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant sent a warning to prevent other victims from occurring by informing the erroneous actions, namely, the so-called ‘refien and distribution of conditions, etc., and at the same time puts a notice in order to express conflicting emotions about E, this is for public interest, and there was no intention of slandering E, and there was no intention of impairing E’s honor, and there was also no intention of impairing E’s reputation, and thus, it does not meet the performance requirements.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby convicted the Defendant.

B. The lower court’s sentence (two million won of fine) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the term “purpose of slandering people” under Article 70(1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. means requiring the intention or purpose of harm, and is in conflict with one another in the direction of subjective intention of the actor as well as for the public interest. Whether there is the purpose of slandering a person ought to be determined by considering the overall circumstances concerning the expression itself, such as the content and nature of the relevant publicly alleged fact, the scope of the other party to whom the relevant fact was published, the method of expression, etc., and the degree of infringement of reputation damaged

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6036 Decided December 26, 2003, and Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2422 Decided July 10, 2008, etc.). According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, ① the Defendant paid the victim a certain amount of money every month after the lapse of the first and second time on September 2012, the Defendant continued to reach such a maturity of one year, and ② the victim was the Defendant.