정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) In order to inform the victim that the behavior of the abused child was wrong, Defendant 1 had no intention to insult the victim by inserting the same writing or comments as that of the facts constituting the offense of the lower court and the summary of the facts charged (hereinafter “instant writing or comments”).
In addition, while freely exchanging opinions in the Internet space, this case’s writing or comments are merely a use of somewhat inappropriate expressions to emphasize the validity of his opinion, and thus, constitute a justifiable act, which does not violate social norms. The victim puts comments on February 9, 2014 that he would be harming himself through comments, etc. on “C carpet,” and thus, the preparation of this case’s writing or comments on the comments is dismissed as it is based on the consent of the victim.
2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.
B. Among the judgment below of the public prosecutor, this case’s writing or comments on the acquittal portion constitutes an insulting speech that infringes on the victim’s external reputation, but the external reputation was not insulting.
In light of the above, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous in law.
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for an ex officio appeal, in the first instance trial, “crimes of Violation of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation)” and “Article 70(2) of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, etc. (Defamation)” were deleted in the name of the crime, and all the facts charged were requested to change the indictment to the offense of insult. Since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.
Although there are such reasons for reversal of authority, the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the original legal doctrine constitutes a crime of insult.