The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the content and purport of the public prosecutor’s statement, the public prosecutor’s statement constitutes a whole false fact. In full view of the Defendant’s broadcasting experience, place of speaking, the subject and circumstances of speaking, there was doluence as to the Defendant’s false fact.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant on the violation of the Act on Promotion of Preliminary Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation) among the facts charged in the instant case is erroneous

B. Defendant 1) In the misapprehension of the legal principle, although the Defendant did not have “purpose of slandering” the victim, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation) among the facts charged in the instant case.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 700,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts (not guilty part of the reasoning of the lower judgment), the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation) with respect to the purport that the Defendant’s statement was not false or false, or that the Defendant did not have any awareness of the Defendant’s false facts.

Although the defendant's remarks are somewhat weak and mixed with his lineal ascendant and descendant, in light of the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the legal doctrine (guilty part of the lower judgment), the Defendant did not have an intent to defame the victim.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, the defendant's statement and method of expression, the victim is solely the victim.