1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. On December 22, 2015, the Defendant written an explanatory note on the article (which is posted next to the Internet portal site) recorded on the Plaintiff’s (hereinafter “instant text”) stating that “the processed matter is not solely futile” (hereinafter “instant text”).

2. Determination

(a) The establishment (1) of the liability for damages refers to the expression of an abstract judgment or sacrific appraisal that would prejudice the people’s social assessment without revealing the facts;

According to the above facts, the defendant is responsible for compensating the plaintiff for mental damage caused by the plaintiff, since the defendant prepares this case's writing that could undermine the plaintiff's social reputation in the Internet portal site's writing column where many unspecified persons can confirm the contents of the writing.

(2) In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that the instant comments merely expressed other comments using an excessive expression on the said articles, and did not take them as the subject of the Plaintiff, and that the phrase “gents” means that the phrase “gents” refers to a simple expression that represents the other party, and that the phrase “finch” also refers to an expression that lowers the male, arbits, or is friendly, and thus, the writing of the instant comments is an act that does not violate the social rules.

However, the comments of this case, however, are reasonable to view that among the contents of the article that the plaintiff made a court's decision of compulsory conciliation against D using the expressions of C, C, C, and C, etc., the part of the article that the plaintiff slandered D, which caused the Plaintiff's attack against the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to view that the article of this case was an sacratic expression that caused the Plaintiff's attack against D

It is not judged that the defendant merely expressed bitral and friendly bitral, etc. on the defendant.

B. The scope of compensation for damages is the content and the degree of expression of the instant comments, and the Defendant is a personal journalist’s expression that the Plaintiff, who is a famous journalist, excessively expressed D.