The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) is that the Defendant created the novel of processing, not written the victim in the same manner as the facts charged by specifying the victim, but did not have an intent to defame the victim, and did not reveal specific facts or false facts to the victim.

2. The term “statement of fact” under Article 61(1) of the former Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (amended by Act No. 8778 of Dec. 21, 2007) refers to a report or statement on the past or current facts in a specific time and space, and the content of the statement refers to a document that can be proved by evidence when it comes to distinguish whether the statement is a fact or an opinion. In determining whether it is a fact, it shall be determined by considering the overall circumstances, such as the ordinary meaning and usage of the language, the context in which the given statement was used, the context in which the given statement was used, and the social situation in which the expression was made.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8812 Decided May 28, 2009). In addition, the phrase “purposes to defame a person” as provided for in Article 61(2) of the aforementioned Act requires the intent or purpose of a perpetrator, and the issue of whether a person is intended to defame a person ought to be determined by considering the overall circumstances pertaining to the expression itself, such as the content and nature of the relevant publicly alleged fact, the scope of the counter-party to which the relevant fact was published, the method of expression, etc., and the degree of infringement of reputation damaged or may be damaged by the said expression.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2422 Decided July 10, 2008). The following facts or circumstances recognized by the lower court based on evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., the Defendant: (a) opened and operated as an employee of B, “C” the members of which are B employees on June 21, 2017; and (b) around January 10, 2018, the Defendant was the said O.