정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)등
The guilty portion of the judgment of the court of first instance and the second judgment shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. (1) The insult of Defendant G by mistake of facts (A) cannot be deemed to have been identified as the victim. ① Nos. 1 and 2 per annum of crime sight table as indicated in the judgment below of the court below.
② No. 1 per annum of the crime sight table as indicated in the holding of the court below is not a content likely to undermine the social evaluation of the other party’s personal value.
(3) The victim gives wrong information to others, defames the defendant, and takes passive action against him/her, so it constitutes a justifiable act that does not go against the social norms.
(B) The insult of the victim V cannot be deemed as specifying the victim.
(2) The victim gives wrong information to others, defames the defendant, and makes a passive response, so it constitutes a justifiable act that does not go against the social norms.
(2) The punishment of the lower court (2 million won of fine) and that of the second instance court (1 million won of fine) on the grounds that the punishment of the lower court on the grounds of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. A prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of facts (the violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation) for Victims G) did not have been involved by the victim in the process of filing a complaint against the defendant, and the victim did not have committed defamation and a crime of spreading false facts through the name of the defendant's father. Therefore, the Defendant’s comments are false.
(2) The first instance court’s punishment of unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts
A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the insult of the victim G, the Defendant can be found to have insulting the victim.
① On October 2, 2016, the Defendant designated “I” as the victim’s ID on October 2, 2016, as indicated in the holding of the first instance judgment, and written a letter “I,” “I, Neman, a man who lives with his/her match in the Republic of Korea.”
§ 1.