The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The purpose of this article is to criticize the victim because it was for true facts and public interest.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, “the purpose of slandering a person” as provided by Article 70(2) of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. or Article 309(2) of the Criminal Act requires the intention or purpose of the harm, and the existence of the purpose of slandering a person should be determined by considering the overall circumstances concerning the expression itself, such as the content and nature of the relevant statement, the scope of the counter-party to whom the relevant fact was published, the method of expression, etc., and the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do648, Aug. 25, 2006). 2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, each of the following facts can be acknowledged.

① At around September 3, 2013, around 01:34, and around September 24, 2013, around September 24, 2013, the Defendant posted an article (hereinafter “instant article”) written on the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment on his own (hereinafter “the instant case”). On the ground that the Defendant appears to have expressed an son’s refusal to go to a childcare center operated by the victim, the Defendant was suspected of the victim’s child abuse, and the CCTV was returned to the said childcare center around August 26, 2013, from August 20, 2013 to August 23, 2013, but the circumstances of the abuse were not discovered.

On the following day, the defendant visited a child care center again to confirm the situation of abuse, etc., but failed to discover it, and appeared to have an attitude to audit the victim, etc. well.

On August 28, 2013, the Defendant visited the defective child-care center in order not to have it continuously in the child-care center and held it in his/her hands.