The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding and misunderstanding of the legal principles as stated in the judgment of the court below are true. Even if the defendant obtained such information with the report of the police officer at present, it was believed that the content was true and there was no awareness that it was false, and there was no purpose of slandering it for the public interest.

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

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In order to establish a crime of defamation by publicly alleging false facts through an information and communications network under Article 70(2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc., the fact should be deemed to be false, and the defendant should be aware that the facts are false in publicly alleging such facts. In other words, the burden of proof for the criminal intent is borne by the prosecutor.

(1) In order to determine whether a prosecutor bears the above burden of proof, a prosecutor who is the active party must prove the absence of a specific act at a specified period and place without reasonable doubt. However, it is difficult to prove the absence of a specific fact in light of social norms, while it is difficult for a prosecutor to prove the absence of a specific period and space, and it is more easy to assert and prove the existence of a fact. Thus, such circumstance should be taken into account in determining whether a prosecutor fulfilled the burden of proof. Accordingly, a person who asserts that there was no suspicion against a person who asserts that there was no act of suspicion, as well as in determining whether there was a specific act at a specified place.