All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (legal scenario) merely stated facts for the public interest, and thus, illegality is excluded pursuant to Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of defamation due to the statement of facts in the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. According to the evidence, including the testimony of the victim of mistake of facts and G, the prosecutor (in fact-finding, 500,000 won) recognizes the fact that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim, and therefore, it is also recognized that the contents of the defendant's statement are also false facts. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of defamation by the statement of false facts among the facts charged in the instant case against the defendant is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts. 2) The punishment (in 50,000 won)

2. Article 310 of the Criminal Act regarding the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine refers to “when the alleged facts relate to the public interest” and “when the alleged facts relate to the public interest” should be objectively seen, and an actor is also required to make a statement of facts for the public interest subjectively. As to the public interest in such a period, not only pertains to the public interest of the State, society, and other general public, but also to the interest and interest of a specific social group or its entire members. Whether the alleged facts relate to the public interest should be determined by comparing the contents and nature of the alleged facts in question, the scope of the counter-party to which the publication of the relevant facts was made, and the method of expression itself, with regard to the degree of infringement of honor that may be damaged or damaged by the expression.

(Supreme Court Decision 2004Do3912 Decided October 15, 2004). In accordance with the above legal principles, the court below was examined.