1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

The reasoning for this court’s explanation is as follows, except for the part below’s 4th 7th 7th 7th son’s judgment of the court of first instance, and it is identical to the statement in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, even in a case where a person’s reputation is harmed by a statement of fact (see, e.g., Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act), if it is true and solely for the public interest, it is not unlawful. In this context, “when a statement concerns the public interest” concerns the public interest, as it concerns the objective of the statement, and is also a statement of fact for the public interest. In this case, the issue of whether the statement concerns the public interest should be determined by comparing and examining the specific contents of the statement, the scope of publication of the fact, the method of expression, etc., and the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression, and if an actor’s motive or incidental motive is for the public interest, it should be deemed that the actor was a major motive or incidental motive for the public interest.

(Supreme Court Decision 2005Da58823 Decided January 24, 2008). The following circumstances acknowledged as follows: (a) evidence of recognition and evidence Nos. 1, 3-1 through 88, 5, and evidence No. 11-1, 2, 12, 6, 7, 15 through 19 are comprehensively taken into account in evidence No. 11-2, 12, 6, 7, 15, and 19; (b) the fact that the demonstration of this case was conducted on the road where multiple persons who received education from the plaintiff or the plaintiff and those who do not have direct relations with the plaintiff, and (c) the defendant’s statement of fact is removed by the plaintiff, and KRW 50 million is its own money between the plaintiff and the plaintiff.