The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the content of each notice posted by the Defendant is a false fact. It is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant’s reputation of each individual, such as a person of distinguished service to the May 18 Democratization Movement, who publicly participated in the 518 Democratization Movement by revealing false facts through information and communications networks

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to defamation by collective labeling, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In the trial of the court, the ex officio determination prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment against the Defendant to “persons who have impaired the honor of persons of distinguished service to the Gwangju Democratization Movement, such as Victim N andO, and at the same time, those who died from the Gwangju Democratization Movement, such as Victim P, etc.” to “the bereaved family members of the 518 Democratization Movement, such as Victim N, the Association of Persons of Distinguished Service to the 518 Democratization Movement, the Association of Persons of Distinguished Service to the 518 Democratization Movement, the Association of Persons of Distinguished Service to the 518 Democratization Movement, and Z as well as those who died from the Gwangju Democratization Movement, such as the deceased P et al.

Despite such reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's argument of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion

A. Defamation by a collective mark of relevant legal principles cannot be interpreted as a content of defamation against a specific person belonging to the group, and in principle, defamation against each individual member is not established, since the degree of criticism by collective mark does not reach the degree of impact on the social evaluation of the members due to dilution of the degree of criticism caused by individual members. However, in principle, defamation against the individual member is not established.