정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not indicate the name of the victim and did not express the victim’s question and suspicion, and did not indicate false facts. Furthermore, since the victim is officially recognized, it is illegal to make a bypassive suspicion.
2. Determination:
A. Before the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of ex officio, the prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment that “the victim’s honor was damaged” in the facts charged to “the victim’s honor was damaged” among the facts charged at the trial court. Since the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained in this respect.
B. As to the assertion of a mistake of fact-finding, in a case where a certain expressive act becomes a problem in relation to defamation, whether the expression is a statement of fact or merely an expression of opinion or comment, or if an expression of opinion or comment is made at the same time, whether or not the fact constituting the premise is indicated at the same time or not, shall be determined based on the objective contents of the relevant expression, as well as on the ordinary meaning of words used in the expression, overall flow of expression, method of linking phrases, etc. under the premise that the ordinary reader is in contact with the expression with the ordinary reader at the same time. Moreover, it shall also be determined based on the following factors: (a) wider context in which the relevant expression is published, or the social flow, etc. that is the background
In addition, Article 61(2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. or Article 309(2) of the Criminal Act provides that “the purpose of slandering a person” requires the intention or purpose of a damage, and whether there is a purpose of slandering a person is related to the expression itself, such as the content and nature of the relevant timely fact, the scope of the other party who published the relevant fact, and the method of