The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there was no perception that some of the above contents are false or false, there was no awareness that the defendant would have made a false fact, and since there was no purpose of slandering the victim, the court below erred by misunderstanding facts or misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of violating the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Defamation) and Information Protection and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection Act, which recognized the defendant's liability for defamation and damage to the victim.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (three million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In order to establish defamation by publicly alleging false facts through an information and communications network under Article 70(2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (hereinafter “Information and Communications Network Act”), not only the publicly alleged facts should be deemed false, but also the Defendant should be aware that the publicly alleged facts are false, and the burden of proof for the criminal intent, i.e., awareness of such false facts, is the prosecutor.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10864, Nov. 24, 2011). In such cases, in determining whether the alleged facts are false, the purport of the entire content of the alleged facts ought to be examined. If the material facts are consistent with objective facts, even if the material facts are different from the truth or somewhat exaggerated expressions exist, it cannot be deemed as false facts.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do13718, Sept. 4, 2014). (B)

1) Specific determination 1) As to defamation and violation of the Information and Communications Network Act (Defamation) on March 16, 2019 among the facts charged in the instant case (see, e.g., Articles 1 and 2-A of the facts charged in the original judgment).