Damage)

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Nowon-gu Winterdong

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the judgment of innocence shall be published.

A. The contents of the note sent by the defendant are only the value neutrality fact that the prosecutor's office is scheduled to send the case and it is not specific fact that there is a possibility of infringing on the social value or evaluation of a specific person.

B. The defendant sent e-mail only to B, and the victim and B are very close to each other, and there is no possibility of dissemination and there is no performance.

C. The defendant's act of sending a note to B for the purpose of causing warnings or surrounding areas is consistent with the public interest and thus there is no purpose of slandering the defendant.

D. There is no intention to impair C’s honor.

2. Facts charged;

The defendant is the chairperson of the Dong Dong-dong, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu on December 30, 2013, and around 00, at the office of the defendant of ○○ apartment at the Dong-dong, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, and at the office of the defendant of ○○ apartment, using the Internet domain of the computer, and damaged the defendant's reputation by pointing out the facts that the victim was under investigation and pointing out the fact that the defendant was under investigation with respect to the case (type 632 XX) sent to the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office in relation to the case (type 2013 type 632 XX). The defendant filed a complaint for C investigation with the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office on December 24, 2013.

3. The judgment of the court below

The lower court rendered a judgment as follows as to the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel, and sentenced the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

A. The e-mail sent by the Defendant to B constitutes a statement of facts having character to the extent that it is likely to infringe on the social value or evaluation of the victim due to the disclosure of both the Defendant’s suit, case number, competent police station, competent prosecutor’s office, competent prosecutor, competent prosecutor, and case progress.

B. B stating that he was aware of the fact that he was aware of the fact that he was aware of his complaint, and that he was aware of the contents of the mail to several persons, and that there is a possibility of dissemination in light of the interests of the defendant, the victim and the victim, and the victim, and the public performance is recognized.

C. In light of the motive for the Defendant to send a note to B, the relationship between the Defendant, the victim and B, the content and nature of the fact indicated by the mail, etc., it seems that the primary purpose of the Defendant was not regarding public interest, but to slander the victim.

4. Judgment of the court below

In order to establish defamation, a victim’s expression of specific facts likely to infringe on the victim’s social value or evaluation should be indicated. Whether an expression is defamation should be determined by objective evaluation in accordance with the ordinary social norms of the expression (Supreme Court Decision 2014.3.

27. Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1226 Decided 27.

In the instant case, the e-mail sent by the Defendant to public health room and the Defendant’s e-mail is indicated as the result of the investigation, and “The case (Type 632 XX) which filed a complaint against CC” in attached photo files is indicated as “The Seoul Nowon Police Station,” and “The Seoul Nowon Police Station will have the right to investigate and transfer the e-mail to the Defendant.” (The post office of the Seoul Northern District Public Prosecutor’s Office, Seoul Northern District Public Prosecutor’s Office) stated as “The statement to the effect that the Defendant is an offender of a serious crime can be a defamation statement. However, the contents of the above photograph file cannot be seen as an expression of the fact that the Defendant filed a complaint against C is merely an investigation under investigation ( whatever suspicions do not appear). Therefore, it is difficult to view that the e-mail of the Defendant did not infringe on the social reputation of the above e-mail for the purpose of sending the e-mail to B and thus, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s e-mail constitutes a fundamental offense against the Defendant under investigation or accusation.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of defamation by determining that the Defendant’s act constitutes defamation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The Defendant’s allegation pointing this out has merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, since the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following decision is rendered

[Judgment of not guilty: Not guilty]

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as indicated in the above Paragraph 2, and it is difficult to view the content of the e-mail sent by the Defendant to B as defamation as seen in the above Paragraph 4, and the evidence submitted by the prosecution alone is insufficient to recognize the Defendant’s act as defamation under Article 70(1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., and thus, the Defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the verdict of innocence is publicly announced pursuant to Article 58(2) of the Criminal

Oral Republic of Korea

Dried minerals