정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)등
The judgment below
The guilty part is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Eastern District Court Panel Division.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Examining the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court on the first and third grounds for appeal, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable to have convicted the Defendant of the violation of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation) on May 16, 2015 against victims AV, on the grounds stated in its reasoning.
In doing so, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of defamation of deceased persons and the crime of violation of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection
2. On the second ground for appeal
A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the violation of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation) against the Victim BC on May 14, 2016 and June 1, 2016, among the facts charged in the instant case, is as follows: (a) the Defendant, in preparing this paper on the bulletin board of the Internet news media “B” for the purpose of slandering the Victim BC, posted a false statement on the fact that the Defendant received research funds from BE professors or that the BE level was highly likely to have prepared on behalf of the said thesis, thereby impairing the Victim BC’s reputation.
B. As to each of the above facts charged, the court below held that the defendant did not go through specific verification or verification procedures and did not present the basis or materials for each posting. The reader's identity as a reader's identity recognized that the victim BC received research funds from BE teachers and prepared a thesis. Considering the overall content, expression method, ordinary usage and meaning of language, the context of the affected part, etc., the defendant revealed false facts for the purpose of slandering the victim BC.