The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the defamation of publications as indicated in the judgment of the court below, there is a fact that the Defendant posted the article as indicated in the judgment of the court below on the “Cschool newsletter”. However, this is for the development and transparent accounting of the alumni, which did not have the purpose of slandering, and is for the public interest solely as a true fact. 2) As to the violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (Defamation) of Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (Defamation), the Defendant did not have any fact that the Defendant posted on the Internet

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. As to the assertion regarding defamation in publications, “purpose of slandering a person” under Article 309(2) of the Criminal Act refers to “purpose of slandering a person,” which requires the intent or purpose of harm. The issue of whether a person has an intention to defame a person ought to be determined by comparing and considering the overall circumstances, such as the content and nature of the relevant publicly alleged fact, the scope of the other party to whom the relevant fact was published, and the method of expression, etc., and the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the said expression.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do5068 delivered on October 14, 2005, 2006Do648 delivered on August 25, 2006, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the defendant takes office as the president of the Dong Chang-dong branch and received the transfer of the affairs of the Dong Chang-dong branch from the victim D, etc. who was the secretary general, and the defendant requested for an explanatory order on the part of the Dong Chang-dong branch and made a detailed answer that he/she has performed his/her duties properly. However, the former president of the Dong Chang-dong branch without any special grounds.