The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In a misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant’s writing that expressed Defendant’s thoughts and positions on the Internet car page was intended to prevent further damage to others by informing others of the case of the Defendant’s damage, and the Defendant did not have an intention to slander the victim.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. “Purpose of slandering a person” in Article 70(1) of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. requires the intent or purpose of a hazard. The issue of whether a person is intended to defame a person ought to be determined by comparing and considering the following circumstances: (a) the content and nature of the relevant publicly alleged fact; (b) the scope of the counter-party to whom the relevant fact was published; and (c) the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2013Do8214, Jul. 10, 2014; 2006Do648, Aug. 25, 2006).

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

1) The Defendant’s posting of a letter via the information and communications network is the automobile shopping mall and the Internet site related to the transaction of used goods, which are not related to the interior.

2) The Defendant posted a statement to the similar purport on the “C” and “F” bulletin board, which multiple users visit, and the article also criticizes the victims related to fraud damage, as well as notifies how the father of the Jinna test has abandoned money.