The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The article that the defendant falsely posted the fact is true and is not so true.

Even if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the truth is true.

B. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant merely mentioned the victim in the process of breathing the police’s corruption, and thus, is not illegal as it is for public interest.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances are acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the trial court: (a) the victim stated that there was no interference with the business of a member operated by the Defendant at the investigative agency and the lower court consistently; (b) the dental clinic operated by the victim and the oriental medical clinic operated by the Defendant did not compete with each other; and (c) the victim did not engage in the business so that there is no reason to obstruct the job placement of a member operated by the Defendant or the patient due to the victim’s solicitation to the police; (d) the record of conversations with the high school line; (e) the Defendant submitted a copy of the verdict of non-prosecution of the genuine case against the non-indicted on the face of the name of the Defendant in 2013, a copy of the judgment of the information and communications network and the video on the face of the Internet screen; (e) each of the above materials was not related to the victim; and (e) the Defendant did not submit any materials to acknowledge the assertion otherwise; and (e) this constitutes a false fact, and there is no reasonable reason to believe that this constitutes a true fact.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. There is no room for application of Article 310 of the Criminal Act to an act constituting an offense of defamation by a statement of false facts regarding the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2690, May 9, 2012).