All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Judgment on the defendant's appeal (as to the conviction of the first instance judgment)

A. Regarding the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and legal principles), the first instance court determined that all the rebuttals based on facts from the Defendant’s point of view as to the Defendant’s assertion of the victimized Company E were a factual or false statement of defamation purpose, because the Defendant did not understand the meaning of the comments on the comments posted by the Defendant, as stated in attached Table 1. (former part) and 4. (former part) of the List of Crimes No. 1 in the judgment of the first instance, and that all the comments based on the facts from the Defendant’s point of view as to the Defendant’s assertion of the victimized Company E were a factual or false statement of the intent of defamation (Claim 1).

따라서 위와 같은 댓 글은 공공의 이익을 위한 것으로 위법성이 조각된다( 주장 Ⅱ). 나. 판단 ⑴ 주장 Ⅰ에 대하여 ㈎ 명예 훼손죄가 성립하기 위하여는 특정인의 사회적 가치 내지 평가가 침해될 가능성이 있는 구체적인 사실을 적시하여야 하는 바( 대법원 2000. 2. 25. 선고 98도 2188 판결 등 참조), 어떤 표현이 명예훼손적인지 여부는 그 표현에 대한 사회 통념에 따른 객관적 평가에 의하여 판단하여야 한다.

따라서 가치중립적인 표현을 사용하였다 하더라도 사회 통념상 그로 인하여 특정인의 사회적 평가가 저하되었다고 판단된다면 명예 훼손죄가 성립할 수 있다( 대법원 2007. 10. 25. 선고 2007도 5077 판결 참조). ㈏ 이러한 법리에 따라 이 사건을 본다.

In full view of the contents of the posting of Internet F (the contents of the report related to the dispute between the victimized company and the defendant D) on the list of offenses attached to the judgment of the first instance, and the ordinary meaning and usage of the comments posted by the defendant, the possibility of proof, the context in which the words in question were used, etc., the judgment of the first instance is held.