정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.
1. On April 18, 2013, the Defendant filed a complaint with the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office of the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office by remitting the victim D's KRW 153,374,520 from the sectional owner for the purpose of electricity and water supply, and on December 31, 2013, the case of the complaint was handled without suspicion on the ground that there is no clear evidence that the victim was personally useful for the said emergency funds.
Around 13:31 on August 21, 2015, the Defendant, as the complainant of the above accusation case, was well aware of the content and result of the above disposition, posted a letter stating that “A N.N. has made a decision that “A. N. has not been suspected of being suspected,” and that “N. N. has made a decision that N.N. requested to disclose the purpose of using KRW 1 million by Kakao A. N.,” and that its decision was made several times only in Stockholm, and that the owner’s mind would be encouraged by tending public opinion will be encouraged by referring to the public opinion.”
On the other hand, the Defendant continuously posted a letter “Isn't see at any time from when she was erroneous?” and posted a letter “Isn't know that she would have been investigated by a judicial authority. Isn't know that she would have been investigated by a judicial authority. Isn't know that she would have been aware that she would have her walked from a sectional owner.”
As a result, the Defendant posted false facts through information and communications networks to defame the victim, thereby impairing the honor of the victim.
2. Article 70(1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. provides that “the purpose of slandering people” requires the intention or purpose of harm, and whether there is “the purpose of slandering people” is the relevant timely fact.