정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
All appeals by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The comments written in the facts charged by the defendant on his Kakao Account (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) are merely a statement of facts, not a false statement, but a statement of false facts, and there was no purpose of slandering against the defendant, and even if so, they were not.
Even if this is a legitimate act that does not violate social rules, it is not a crime.
Nevertheless, by finding guilty of the facts charged of this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the constituent elements for the crime of violation of the Act on Promotion of the Utilization of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation) and the grounds for the exclusion of illegality.
B. In light of the fact that the prosecutor (unlawful in sentencing) did not reflect the Defendant’s mistake and that the Defendant did not compensate for damages, the lower court’s suspended sentence of KRW 700,000 is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. (1) Determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the defense counsel’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (1) is false or false, the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., the Defendant, on August 17, 2015, indicated in the facts charged, stating that “The Defendant shall put the damaged person to K, who was in the Defendant’s blind village” on October 29, 2015, and that “the injured person, with H, will return the outstanding amount of two million won.”
In the low-income factory, it is not easy to do so.
The Defendant posted a letter written in the facts charged to the effect that the Defendant’s act of the low-income company differs from stoves.” The Defendant is not related to K and stoves, and there is no evidence to support the fact that the victim acted as stoves on the part of K and the Defendant, and ② The victim conflicts with K in relation to the sale of stoves between the Defendant and K.