The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. On February 4, 2015, the summary of the facts charged by the Defendant using the “G” “F” for the purpose of slandering the Victim E in the Internet Neneber C, 102 Dong 909, the Defendant’s dwelling at the Internet Nene C, 102 Dong 909.

“E (H) with the title of “I”, the E (H) of which is changed into the fraud.

I have been subject to, and

1. The member I (H) ID;

2. The name E of the fraudulent member;

3.the contact point for the fraudulent member (or account) KNF;

4. 거래 글( 덧글) 위치 글 자기가 알아서 삭제. ㅋㅋ 근데 제 블 로그에 이미 모셔 놨어요,

5. The victim had damaged the reputation of the victim by openly inserting facts through an information and communications network, such as misunderstanding the victim’s morale on the Internet by inserting a letter of “the details of entrance and exit, the contents of conversation, and the closure of a course, etc.” (hereinafter “the details of entrance and exit”).

2. Although the defendant's assertion of the above facts charged acknowledged the facts that the defendant committed the acts stated in the above facts charged, such acts do not constitute a crime because they were either for the purpose of slander or for the public interest.

3. "Purpose of slandering a person" under Article 70 of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. means requiring an intention or purpose of a harming a person. The issue of whether a person is intended to defame a person is determined by comparing and considering the contents and nature of the relevant publicly alleged fact, the scope of the counter-party to whom the relevant fact was published, and the degree of infringement of honor that may be damaged or damaged by the expression, etc. At the same time, the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression should be determined by considering the overall circumstances, such as the method of expression. Since the public interest and the subjective intention of the actor conflict with each other in the direction of the actor’s subjective intention, it is reasonable to deem that the purpose of slander is denied