The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the part of the facts charged of this case’s statement to the effect that “the head of the team, who was on duty as the victim, returned to Korea” (hereinafter “the instant statement”). As to the part of the statement to the effect that “the victim,” who is in a single crime, failed to adapt,” the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the only part of the relevant crime was appealed, and the prosecutor did not appeal.

If only a part of the crime was found guilty and the prosecutor did not file an appeal against the part which was found not guilty, the part which was not guilty by the indivisible principle of appeal shall also be remanded to the appellate court, but the part which was not found guilty shall be exempted from the object of attack and defense between the parties, and shall in fact leave from the object of trial (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12934, Jan. 14, 2010). Thus, the appellate court shall not make a decision as to the part which was found not guilty of the defendant, and it shall be decided not separately in the trial.

In the end, the scope of the trial shall be limited to the guilty part of the judgment of the court below.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant alleged misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles made the instant remarks, considering the following: (a) while relianceing on the content that he had taken from the management at the board of directors’ meetings, and there was no perception of the Defendant’s falsity; and (b) the Defendant’s employee made such remarks to the effect that he would concentrate on his work, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have had the intent of defamation.

Nevertheless, this part of the facts charged is recognized by the defendant's intention to commit a crime of defamation of reputation.