The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and legal principles) of the Defendant’s act of transmitting the text message of this case solely for the public interest without any purpose of slandering the victim, but the lower court erred by misapprehending facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

2. From the end of May 2013, the Defendant was expelled from the above partnership around May 7, 2015, as a person who was a member of the victim CD association, the president of the instant association.

On April 10, 2015, around 07:23, the Defendant access from the Defendant’s house located in Songpa-gu Seoul Songpa-gu Seoul to F, which is an Internet text dispatch site via a computer, to “D members’ multiple thickness are known.”

(A) The representative director C, who holds 49% of the shares of D C (State) interest G (State), shall inform that the sentence is being in progress after being sentenced to two years and six months (15.1.21) and shall not be subject to any disadvantage in property by verifying the above matters, even with the thickness of the majority of the members of the D association.

The text message “ was made and sent to approximately 228 members of the union, including the victim.”

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim by openly duplicating facts through information and communication networks with a view to slandering the victim.

3. Determination

A. “Purpose of slandering a person” under Article 70(1) of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. of Information and Communications Network Act is the same as “purpose of slandering a person” under Article 309(1) of the Criminal Act, and thus, requires the intent or purpose of harm, and is in conflict with one another in the direction of subjective intent of the actor, as it is for the benefit of public interest.

Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, it is reasonable to view that a publicly alleged fact is related to the public interest. Here, “where a timely fact concerns the public interest,” the phrase “where a timely fact concerns the public interest,” means the public interest when objectively viewed the alleged fact.