Around April 6, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F, the Defendant: (b) took photographs from the said victim to use them only as D's calgo, and (c) did not intend to use them for other branches; (d) did not obtain the victim’s consent; (b) carried the eye of the snow part on the said G Internet camera so that many unspecified people can see it; and (c) posted the victim’s face before and after wearing his/her hair and his/her head photo, thereby impairing the victim’s reputation by pointing out facts.

2. In full view of the following facts and circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s act of posting the victim’s photograph, etc. at the time constitutes a case of undermining the victim’s social value or assessment, and even if so, it is insufficient to deem that the Defendant had the intent to impair the victim’s reputation only by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In order to establish defamation, a specific fact should be publicly stated that a specific person’s social value or evaluation is likely to be infringed. Whether an expression is defamation should be determined by an objective evaluation in accordance with the ordinary social norms of the expression, and a value-oriented expression was used.

Even if social norms, if it is judged that the social evaluation of a certain person has deteriorated, defamation crime can be established.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do5077 Decided October 25, 2007, and Supreme Court Decision 2008Do6728 Decided November 27, 2008, etc.) B.

In this case, the defendant who operates the H branch, which is the household launch company, is a customer for the purpose of publicity of the household launch company.