정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)등
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) posted the instant article on his Twitter to believe that the Defendant is true and to the public interest. As such, there is no intention or slandering against the Defendant to impair the honor of the victim H, or the illegality of such act is excluded.
On March 16, 2014, the Defendant issued a notice on the Defendant’s Twitter account on March 16, 2014 (twitter comments related to the evasion of military service) and subsequently discovered facts. Therefore, the aforementioned posting act does not constitute a crime of violation of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation).
On February 28, 2015, the contents of the article (Twitter twitter twitter twitter twitter twitter twitter twitter twitter twitter twitter twitter twitter twitter twitter twitter twel) posted on
The court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged without justifiable grounds, on the following grounds: (a) the prosecutor’s mistake or misunderstanding of the legal principles; (b) the person on March 25, 2015; (c) the person on April 5, 2015; (d) the person on April 7, 2015; and (e) the violation of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. and Information Protection (Defamation); and (c) the evidence submitted by the prosecutor submitted by the prosecutor was all constituted; (d) the court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged.
The punishment of the lower court (one million won in penalty) that is unfair in sentencing is too unhued and unfair.
In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s determination as to the Defendant’s grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine), the existence of the purpose of defamation, and the part on the assertion of illegality, and the evidence adopted by the lower court, the lower court and the lower court’s determination as to the allegation of illegality, and the following circumstances, even considering that the victim is an official seal, the Defendant, as indicated in each criminal facts in the holding of the lower judgment, destroyed the victim’s reputation by openly disclosing false
(2).