The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (defluence of factual errors or misapprehension of the legal principles) only posted the instant text to inform the victims of the fact that the Defendant could constitute a crime of defamation in the future, and there was no purpose of slandering the victims, in order to eliminate the misunderstandings with regard to C’s operation due to false or secret comments prepared by the victims, and deliver accurate information to the users, and to inform the users of the details written by the victims.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding guilty of the facts charged.

2. "Purpose of slandering a person" under Article 70 (1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. is "the purpose of slandering a person" under Article 309 (1) of the Criminal Act, as well as "the purpose of slandering a person" under Article 309 (1) of the Criminal Act, and thus, in the direction of subjective intention of an actor for the public interest, it is reasonable to deem that the objective of slandering a person is to be denied unless there are special circumstances, in the case where the alleged fact concerns the public interest. "Where the alleged fact concerns the public interest" refers to the public interest when the alleged fact objectively concerns the public interest, and it should include not only the public interest of the State, society, and other general public, but also the interest and interest of a specific social group or the whole members thereof. Whether the alleged fact concerns the public interest is merely a public official or private person, such as a public official or private person, or whether the expression is objectively related to the public interest of society.