The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors and misapprehension of the legal principles) posted on the Internet the article on the recruitment and personnel expenses of the E Corporation, such as the written facts charged, but in light of the fact that the Defendant had no choice but to believe that the above recruitment is true, in light of the following: (a) the JA’s name on February 18, 201, stating that “the victim, who is the head of the planning headquarters of the EEX, urged the withdrawal of the victim in connection with the employment expenses of the victim,” did not take any legal measures against the victim; (b) media reports on the recruitment expenses of local public enterprises; (c) there were reports on the recruitment expenses of local public enterprises; and (d) the Defendant’s dialogues among the people adjacent to the E Corporation on the recruitment expenses of the E Corporation at the same place.

In addition, the defendant puts up the above writing to see the situation of the public corporation at the time when the personnel irregularities was crossed, and did not specify the victim in the above article, and there was no purpose of defamation and defamation against the defendant.

2. The following circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below. ① It is difficult to view that the circumstances alleged by the defendant are just grounds to believe that the recruitment rate for employees contained in the Defendant’s writing was true; Defendant himself also stated in the investigative agency that “in person’s writing is not objective facts, and is doing so in order to fluorize the personnel corruption of the Corporation; ② Defendant does not refer to a specific person. However, this paper argues that the above writing is not a specific person. However, this paper argues that: (a) the Internet news article (Evidence No. 67-69 of the evidence record) of D’s “E Corporation and Graban De” (Evidence No. 67-69 of the evidence record); (b) the above article is an unfair labor act in which transfer of two employees of the Corporation, who are members of the Grano, was made at a pressure level of old labor; and (c) it is affiliated with it.