정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the reasoning of appeal Nos. 2 and 5 of the crime list Nos. 2 and 5 of the attached Table Nos. 2 and 5 of the judgment of the court below in the reasoning of appeal, considering the following as a whole: (a) although the victim did not have been free from interest, it should be deemed that there was a specific factual circumstance that the victim was able to receive litigation costs by winning the association and make it difficult for the Association to maintain its financial status; and (b) thereby, the victim’s social reputation was damaged; and (c) Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 7 of the crime list Nos. 3, 6, and 7 of the above crime list is an act of value neutrality and value neutrality; (d) in this regard, the notice to the effect that “the member is a malicious member who is going to enjoy the money of the members by using malicious law” cannot be deemed to be an act of value neutrality; and (e) the judgment of the court below
2. Determination
A. Article 70(1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., which is a applicable provision to each of the facts charged at the lower court’s judgment, provides that “a person who defames another person by openly exposing facts through an information and communications network for the purpose of defameing another person” shall be punished. The term “a person who defames facts” refers to a report or statement on facts of the past or present, which is accompanied by time and space, and its contents may be proved by evidence.
However, there is no statement about specific past or present facts in the attached list Nos. 2 and 5.
On the other hand, each article written in the attached list Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 7 criticizes the act of receiving litigation costs in favor of the victim D in the lawsuit filed against the Association.