Of the acquittal portion of the lower judgment, the violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection.

1. Although the defendant's each act of the grounds for appeal constitutes a violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Defamation) and a statement of specific facts about defamation, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. “Purpose of slandering a person” under Article 70(1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. to determine the violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation) requires the intent or purpose of defamation. The issue of whether there is “the purpose of slandering a person” ought to be determined by comparing and comparing the degree of infringement of a person’s reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression in light of the contents and nature of the relevant publicly alleged fact, the scope of the party to whom the relevant fact was published, the method of expression, etc.

In addition, such “purpose of slandering a person” is in conflict with the direction of subjective intent of an actor, as it is reasonable to deem that the purpose of slandering a person is denied, unless there are special circumstances, in a case where a publicly alleged fact concerns the public interest. Matters pertaining to public interest includes not only the interests of the State, society, and other general public, but also the interests and interests of a specific social group or a group of its members, and if the principal motive or purpose of the actor is for the public interest, it is difficult to deem that there is a purpose of slandering a person, even if there is an incidental private interest purpose or motive.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8812, May 28, 2009). Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant may defame the victim.