The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the Defendant’s statement is a statement that contains an insulting and insulting expression that can easily identify the victim, and it cannot be deemed that it aims at educational purposes or public interest in light of the circumstances at the time. Therefore, the illegality of the Defendant’s act cannot be excluded.

2. Determination

A. In a case where an act that defames a person by openly pointing out a fact is true and solely for the public interest, it cannot be punished pursuant to Article 310 of the Criminal Act. Here, the term “material fact” refers to a fact that is consistent with objective facts in light of the overall purport of the content thereof, and even if there is a little difference from truth or somewhat exaggerated expression, the term “when it comes to the public interest” refers to the public interest when the alleged fact objectively concerns the public interest, and the actor also states the fact subjectively for the public interest. It includes not only the public interest of the State, the society, and other general public, but also the interest and interest of a specific social group or its entire members. Whether the alleged fact relates to the public interest or not, should be determined by comparing the contents and nature of the relevant alleged fact, the scope of the other party to which the publication of the relevant fact was made, the method of expression, etc., with the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by such expression, and if the motive or purpose of application of Article 10 of the Criminal Act can not be excluded.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2074 Decided December 14, 2007, etc.). B.

Based on these legal principles, this case is intended.