The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (legal scenarios) argues to the purport that the Defendant, through the information and communications network, posted a statement of the same contents as the written facts charged in this case (hereinafter “instant notice”) to the effect that it was derived from the purpose of informing many unspecified women in advance so that they may not be subject to sexual harassment or undermining social reputation, and thus, its major purpose and motive is for public interest and is not unlawful. Thus, the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. “Purpose of slandering a person as prescribed by Article 70(1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.” is that requires an intention or purpose of a hazard, and whether a person is intended to defame a person shall be determined by comparing and considering the overall circumstances pertaining to the expression itself, such as the content and nature of the relevant publicly alleged fact, the scope of the counter-party to whom the relevant fact was published, and the method of expression, etc., and the degree of infringement of honor that may be damaged

On the other hand, it is reasonable to view that the purpose of slandering a person is to deny the purpose of slandering a person, unless there are special circumstances, unless the alleged fact concerns the public interest.

In this case, if the alleged facts are related to the public interest, it shall be related to the public interest when objectively viewed, and an actor shall also indicate the facts for the public interest subjectively, and the public interest shall be widely related to not only to the interests of the State, society, and other general public, but also to the interest and interest of a specific social group or its entire members.