The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that a reporter of a monthly lighting line, who reported to interview the defendant while gathering the contents of the instant facts charged, and the defendant requested to interview the defendant. The defendant respondeded to the request without considering his own interest in the fact that he requested to interview the interview in a historical media itself. The main reason why the defendant interviewed is that he attempted to correct misunderstanding of the above rules, and there was no intention to undermine the social assessment of the victim. However, M reporters engaged in editings by putting the contents of conversations on the grounds of these rules into press organization, and published them in the lighting line for this month. Although the defendant stated the same contents as the written facts of this case at the time of the interview, since it is difficult for the victim to be recognized as the chairperson of the first time by October 9, 201, since it is difficult to view that the victim's reputation or the whole contents of the defendant's opinion were not an intentional expression in light of the victim's social interest in the process of expressing the facts.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

2. "Purpose of slandering a person" under Article 309(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act refers to a person who requires an intention or purpose of a perpetrator, and is in conflict with one another in the direction of subjective intention of the actor as well as for the public interest. Whether there is a purpose of slandering a person is made the content and nature of the relevant timely fact, and the publication of the relevant fact.