The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (1) The Defendant: (a) thought that it is necessary for residents engaged in activities in the organization against D transfer to inquire about the victim who interfered with the activities of D transfer; (b) on the Kakao Kakao Stockholm Group TV room where residents gather and communicate for public interest, the Defendant made a publication as described in the facts charged of the instant case (hereinafter “instant publication”) and there was no purpose of slandering the victim.

(2) The content of the instant bulletin is merely a mere expression of the Defendant’s opinion or conjection, and does not constitute “a statement of fact” in the crime of defamation via information and communications networks.

(3) Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s argument of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant alleged to the same effect as the allegations in the grounds of appeal. As to the reasoning of the judgment, the lower court should be determined by weighing and balancing the degree of infringement of reputation, which may be damaged or damaged by the expression, considering the contents and nature of the relevant publicly alleged fact, the scope of the other party to whom the relevant fact was published, the method of expression, etc., as well as all the circumstances pertaining to the expression itself, such as the content and nature of the relevant publicly alleged fact, the degree of infringement of reputation, which may be damaged or damaged by the said expression, under the title “determination on the assertion of the accused and the defense counsel.”

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do5068 Decided October 14, 2005; 2008Do8310 Decided February 12, 2009, etc.), premised on the premise that the notice of this case is the victim’s objective.