The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) is that the Defendant’s online game account of this case is suspended from using the online game of this case, not because “the fact that all C before the victim company had experienced the character of the Defendant by means of manipulating the computer system of the game and strengthening the item,” but related thereto, “the fact that the Defendant refused to testify in civil litigation with the victim company C, etc.”

Although the defendant recognized the fact that he posted false facts as shown in the facts charged due to the suspension of use of the account, it was a result of undermining the reputation and credit of the victim company and leaving the room. Therefore, it was merely a notice of false facts, and there was no purpose to defame the victim company.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. “Purpose of slandering a person” under Article 70(2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. is the same as “purpose of slandering a person” under Article 309(1) of the Criminal Act, and thus, in the direction of subjective intent of an actor as well as for the public interest, it is reasonable to deem that the purpose of slandering a person is to be denied, unless there are special circumstances, in a case where the alleged fact concerns the public interest. Here, “where the alleged fact concerns the public interest” is objectively related to the public interest when considering the stated fact objectively, and thus, an actor must also indicate the fact for the public interest subjectively. It is widely related to the public interest of the State, society, and other general public as well as to a specific social group or its entire members’ interest and interest.