The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there was a fact that the Defendant posted a statement of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as stated in the judgment of the court below, since the content of this article has considerable reason to believe that it is true or true, and it was posted for public interest purposes, there was no purpose to defame victims

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles: ① the defendant posted a Twitter in this paper is false; ② the defendant did not directly witness the same facts as his/her comments, but it thought that it is logical reasonable as a result of analysis of current newspaper articles, other people's tweet contents, information address, etc.; and the defendant's statement to the effect that he/she displayed a Twitter after checking the facts through Twitter Communications (218 pages, 219 of the investigation record). However, there is no evidence to find that the defendant confirmed the truth of the contents posted by the reporter (which is one of the reporters argued by the defendant) and that there is no evidence to find that the defendant confirmed the truth of the contents posted by the reporter (the P does not have any material received by the defendant, etc. on what contents with the defendant," ③ It does not reveal that the defendant's reputation can be easily acknowledged through the information and communications network with an objective and objective method other than the defendant's assertion.

In addition, considering the contents of the article posted by the defendant, the degree of efforts to confirm the truth of the defendant, etc.