The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The crime of defamation by publication under Article 309(2) of the Criminal Code is established even by dolusent intentional negligence, and if the defendant had actively engaged in the statement of the fact without making efforts to confirm it, even if it is recognized that the specific fact alleged by the defendant was possible by social norms in time and physically, it can be recognized as willful negligence if he/she had actively engaged in the statement of the fact without making efforts to confirm it.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do976 Decided April 23, 2009). The term “statement of fact” in the crime of defamation refers to the expression of opinion, the contents of which are replaced by a value judgment or evaluation, and the term “statement of fact” refers to a report, statement, and other expressive act of specific past or current facts, time and space, as well as the contents thereof, which can be proven as evidence. In distinguishing a statement from whether it is a fact or an opinion, the determination ought to be made in full view of the overall circumstances, such as the ordinary meaning and usage of language, the possibility of proof, the context in which the speech at issue was used, the social situation in which the said expression was made

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6371 Decided September 28, 2006). “Purpose of slandering a person” under Article 309(2) of the Criminal Act is to require the intent or purpose of harm. The issue of whether a person has an intention to defame a person ought to be determined by considering various circumstances concerning the expression itself, such as the content and nature of the relevant publicly alleged fact, the scope of the other party to which the relevant fact was published, the method of expression, etc., and the degree of infringement of reputation damaged or may be damaged by the said expression, and by comparing and considering the degree of infringement of reputation.

(see Supreme Court Decision 201Do14353, Dec. 22, 2011). In addition, “purpose of slandering a person” is in conflict with that of an actor’s subjective intent for the public interest. As such, the alleged fact concerns the public interest.