The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is not false information about the contents posted by the defendant on the D Internet bulletin board (hereinafter “the contents of the instant notice”), but there was no intention to defame the victim C (hereinafter “victim”) or slander the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. 1) In determining whether the facts alleged in the relevant legal doctrine are false or false, if the content of the alleged fact differs from the truth or is merely a somewhat exaggerated expression in light of the overall purport of the facts, it shall not be deemed false, but if the material part is not consistent with objective facts, it shall be deemed that it is false (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Do1147, Jun. 10, 201; 201Do13245, Oct. 25, 2012). 2) Examining the overall purport of the posting of the instant case in light of the relevant legal principles as seen earlier, examining the important part of the Defendant’s timely statement in light of the overall purport of the posting of the instant case, (i) the important part of the Defendant’s statement is ① the management of funds in the special account, and the payment of office allowances) by an occasional audit at the Donam-do Association, and (ii) the content of the victim’s refusal in the Association (hereinafter “the Association”).

However, the following facts or circumstances found by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, i.e., the audit results of the National Federation of the Association of this case and the occasional audit results of the Gannam-do Council did not exist, and the Defendant did not “the victim’s improper payment of office allowances”. Nevertheless, the notice of this case is “the above.”