The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles and improper sentencing)

A. misunderstanding of legal principles (1) The Defendant made a statement to the effect that the victim G was son of K, who caused the victim G to see the case of public interest of CKapets (hereinafter “the instant car page”), on the said car page’s free bulletin board (hereinafter “the instant article”). The Defendant believed that the purpose of slandering the victim was not to defame the victim (1) and that the content of the instant article was not to be true (1). The Defendant merely copied the instant article does not violate the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information, Etc.

B. The first deliberation punishment (6 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution) of the Sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, I examine the allegation I.

㈎ 정보통신망 이용 촉진 및 정보보호 등에 관한 법률 제 70조 제 2 항의 ‘ 사람을 비방할 목적 ’이란 가해의 의사 내지 목적을 요하는 것으로 사람을 비방할 목적이 있는지 여부는 당해 적시 사실의 내용과 성질, 당해 사실의 공표가 이루어진 상대방의 범위, 그 표현의 방법 등 그 표현 자체에 관한 제반 사정을 감안함과 동시에 그 표현에 의하여 훼손되거나 훼손될 수 있는 명예의 침해 정도 등을 비교 형량하여 판단되어야 한다.

In addition, since the purpose of slandering is contrary to the direction of the actor's subjective intention that is for the public interest, it is reasonable to deem that the objective of slandering is denied unless there are special circumstances, in a case where the alleged fact concerns the public interest. Here, the expression "in a case where the alleged fact concerns the public interest" refers to the alleged fact concerning the public interest objectively when objectively viewed, and thus, the perpetrator should indicate the fact for the public interest subjectively, and is related to the public interest.