The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that “the victim was recognized as a person of distinguished service to the 5.18 Gwangju Democratization Movement by manipulating documents,” and there was no awareness that the writing written in the facts charged was false, and there was a considerable reason to believe that the content was true, and the above article did not aim at slandering the victim as being for public interest.

B. In the instant facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine, the prosecutor abused the right of prosecution by filing a public prosecution on the premise that Article 70(2) of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. is not applicable to the instant facts charged, but is subject to the rate under Article 309(2) of the Criminal Act.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, ① The article published by the Defendant merely exceeds the level of suspicion as to the fact that “the victim was recognized as a person of distinguished service to the May 18 Democratization Movement” and around November 27, 2001.

5. 18. 18. The following facts were based on the background or basis that the Defendant was recognized as having rendered distinguished service to the Gwangju Democratization Movement. ② The Defendant, who was an operator of the Internet media, posted an article without undergoing sufficient factual verification procedures as to the victim’s “persons of distinguished service to the Gwangju Democratization Movement,” which constitutes the premise of the article, and ③ even though the Defendant was able to publish the article and confirmed the fact to the head of the State’s veterans office, the Defendant failed to obtain a reply on the ground that the above matters were personal information.

However, the above response by the head of the national veterans' office is justified in accordance with the relevant statutes, such as the Personal Information Protection Act.