to disparage the reputation of such person, shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for up to seven years, by suspension of qualification for up to 10 years, or by a fine not exceeding 50 million won. Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act (Principle of Free Evaluation of Evidence) The probative value of evidence shall be left to the discretion of judges. 【Reference Cases】Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do10864 decided November 24, 2011; 2018Do15868, decided Mar. 2, 2020 (Gong2020Sang, 785) 【Defendant】Defendant 【Appellant】Prosecutor 【Judgment of the court below】Seoul Central District Court Decision 2019No3820 decided July 30, 2020 【Disposition】The final appeal is dismissed. 【Reasoning】The grounds of final appeal are examined. 1. Article 70(2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. stipulates that “a person who commits defamation of another person by disclosing a false fact to the public through an information and communications network purposely to disparage the reputation of such a person, shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for up to seven years, by suspension of qualification for up to 10 years, or by a fine not exceeding KRW 50 million.” A crime in accordance with the above provision ought to be seen to be constituted when the fact purposely disclosed by the criminal defendant is false, the fact is recognized as false, and the intent to disparage a person’s reputation exists. Whether the intent to disparage a person’s reputation exists is a separate constituent element from whether a fact disclosed by the criminal defendant is false, and the intent to disparage a person’s reputation is not recognized on the grounds that the fact revealed is false. Moreover, the burden of proof for all the constituent elements prescribed in the above provision rests upon the prosecutor. The phrase “intent to disparage a person’s reputation” requires the intention and purpose of the offense, and whether the intent to disparage a person’s reputation exists ought to be determined through the fair comparison of the contents and nature of the fact disclosed, the scope of the other party to whom the fact was disclosed, and