the degree of infringement on a person’s reputation defamed by the expression considering various circumstances regarding the expression per se including expression method, etc. The “intent to disparage” is inconsistent with the public interest in that it is the subjective intention of a person who disparaged a person’s reputation, and thus if the fact revealed is for the public interest, the intent to disparage is denied unless there are special circumstances. Herein, “the case where the fact revealed is for the public interest” means that the fact ought to be revealed for the public interest from the objective perspective and subjectively disclosed for the public interest by a person who revealed the fact. Whether the fact is for the public interest ought to be determined in consideration of various circumstances: whether the victim of defamation corresponds to a public figure such as a public official, etc. or just a private person; whether the expression, as the public matters which have public and social nature objectively, contributes to the formation of public opinion of the society or public debate or falls solely under the private sector; whether the victim incurred the risk of defamatory expression; the nature of, and the degree of infringement on, reputation defamed by the expression; the method of and motive for expression, etc. It is difficult to view that the intent to disparage exists even if another purpose or motive for the private interest incidentally is included therein if the main motive for and purpose of a person who committed such an act are for the public interest (see e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do10864 decided Nov. 24, 2011; 2018Do15868 decided Mar. 2, 2020). 2. Gist of the facts charged of this case is as follows. The criminal defendant is the director of Nonindicted 1 Association, and the victim is the person who served as the CEO of US Nonindicted 2 Group Asset Management (English name omitted). The criminal defendant posted the contents that “he/she witnessed △△△ □□□□ fraud case reaching approximately KRW 300 billion and found evidence that the victim was a swindler and the victim represented himself as the CEO of Nonindicted 2 Group Asset Management, but it was a lie” in ○○○○ chat room of Nonindicted 3 Conference using a mobile phone on Oct. 19, 2018. However, the fact is that the victim was the CEO of US Nonindicted 2 Group Asset Management. Hereby, the criminal defendant defamed the victim by divulging false facts through an information and communications network purposely and with intent to disparage the victim’s reputation.