The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant took twegs like the instant facts charged, but there was a woman in an internal relationship with G who was the president. Based on this, the Defendant believed that twegs that twegs that he was true, and based on the circumstances revealed in relation to G before and after twegsing, there was considerable reason to believe that twegs were true.

In addition, G is a public figure, the president of the FF, and if there is doubt that the FF president has a different relation in relation to the corruption in the performance of his duties, it is publicly known as a matter of public interest.

This is about the public interest.

Therefore, the defendant put twelves like the entries in the facts charged of this case.

Even if it comes to this, it should be pronounced not guilty for the reason for the exclusion of illegality under Article 310 of the Criminal Code.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the defendant of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the grounds for excluding illegality in defamation.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (three million won of fine) is too unlimited and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In light of the determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle’s assertion, where illegality is discovered pursuant to Article 310 of the Criminal Act, Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act is limited to the case where an act under Article 307(1) is true and solely for the public interest. In the event of false facts or false factual or false facts through an information and communications network, such act cannot be

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2361, Apr. 26, 2012). Furthermore, even if the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is deemed to have no “non-purpose” as prescribed by Article 70(2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., the lower court is lawful.