The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. The summary of the argument about violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (Defamation) recognizes the fact that the Defendant posted a letter as stated in the instant facts charged.

However, the facts revealed by the Defendant are not false, and ② the Defendant does not post a letter for the purpose of slandering the victim, but merely requires the verification of gluf rice and bread for the public interest.

However, since the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The summary of the argument about interference with the business of the defendant's act of this case has a considerable effect on publicity, as well as the victim has earned a lot of profits from the operation of a driving school, such as recruiting students more than the previous one, so the defendant did not interfere with the business of the victim.

However, since the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (Defamation) 1) Whether the Defendant alleged a false fact or not, the lower court also argued the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court further explained in detail the determination on the above assertion under the title “determination on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion.” While the Defendant used part of the victim’s bypassive expressions, such as the victim’s request for verification of the development of rice content and brutation, etc., according to the overall purport of the expression, the Defendant used part of the victim’s request for verification of the development of rice content, but, according to the overall purport of the expression, provided that “the victim was unable to develop rice content 10% of the rice content, but falsely publicized as if he