The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the overall circumstances of mistake of facts, it is difficult to find out that the victim’s workplace club fee is the victim in writing prepared by the Defendant as stated in the facts charged in the instant case (hereinafter “instant bulletin”). Therefore, it is difficult to view that the subject person is specified as the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (700,000 won) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts is required to be recognized as defamation of the relevant legal principles, and since a person’s name is not necessarily required to be explicitly indicated, if a person’s expression of fact is possible to be identified by considering the surrounding circumstances and comprehensive determination of the contents of his expression, the crime of defamation against the specific person constitutes a crime of defamation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Do1256, Nov. 9, 1982; 201Do1126, Mar. 27, 2014). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, in addition to the reasoning stated by the court below, the court below adopted and examined the following additional circumstances recognized by evidence, the victim’s expression of fact is identified as the victim, and the victim’s work bonus cannot be known as the victim of this case’s expression of fact, and the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.