The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, in fact, posted comments on the comments in order to see the maliciousity of J, which took place through one Internet newspaper operated by one person, and even if the article is not relevant to the content of the comments, it was inevitable that the article was an inevitable nature of the Internet newspaper, which is in the lower order of the discharge of the news.

In addition, the defendant should not be presumed to have an intent to defame the above comments solely on the ground that they are the birth of J. The part of the moral behavior related to the victim's drinking driving accidents in the contents of such comments is related to the victim's work, and is related to the public interest as well as to the public interest of the victim, and it is not reasonable to judge the public interest of such comments depending on whether the defendant has been interested in or participated in the I's work.

In addition, the victim not only falls under the official approval of the local government as a member of the local government in charge of election, but rather, the victim's reputation was damaged by the J's unfolding contents, and the defendant is merely a mere repetition of the facts that have already been objectively known through the media.

Therefore, the Defendant’s posting of comments as stated in the facts charged of this case was for the public interest as well as for the purpose of slandering the victim. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby convicted the Defendant.

2. The evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court is as follows: (i) the Defendant’s sentence was served from March 201 to December 201, 201, J has a conflict of interest with the victim E in relation to I’s administrative affairs, and in particular, “T business” and “S.”.