The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is true that the Defendant posted the same article as the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below on the bulletin board of the next website B free debate. However, although the contents of the printed article are false, and there was no purpose of slandering the public interest, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding the facts, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

2. Determination

A. In a case where an act of damaging a person’s reputation by openly pointing out facts is true and solely pertaining to the public interest, it cannot be punished pursuant to Article 310 of the Criminal Act. Here, “material fact” refers to a fact that is consistent with objective facts in light of the overall purport of the content thereof, and even if the material part is different from truth or somewhat exaggerated expressions, the phrase “when it comes to the public interest” refers to the public interest when objectively viewed the alleged fact, and an actor should also indicate the fact for subjective public interest. In addition, it includes not only the public interest of the State, society, or other general public, but also a specific social group or its entire members’ interest and interest. Whether the alleged fact relates to public interest or not, at the same time, should be determined by comparing the expression itself such as the content and nature of the relevant fact, the scope of the counter-party to which the publication of the relevant fact was made, the method of expression itself, etc., with the degree of harm or harm caused by such expression, and if the motive or purpose of application of Article 10 of the Criminal Act is incidental to public interest.