beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.09.07 2017노832

정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)등

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the prosecutor’s appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant, as indicated in the list of offenses No. 1 through No. 3 among the charges interfering with the instant business, a notice written by him/her as described in the list of offenses No. 1 to No. 3 is a false fact in itself; (b) the core part of the notice constitutes false facts or when comprehensively viewed the content of the notice constitutes a false fact; and (c) thereby, the Defendant’s act constitutes a c and D corporation’s share management business by expressing false facts.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by finding not guilty of each of the entries in the attached list 1 through 3 among the charges that interfere with the instant business.

2. For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined as follows: (a) the part of the charge interfering with the instant business: (b) the re-section 1 of the annexed crime list Nos. 2 is merely a simple expression of opinion; and (c) it is difficult to recognize that the re-section 2 of the annexed crime list Nos. 2 does not constitute the distribution of false facts or intent to interfere with the Defendant’s business; (c) it is difficult to readily conclude that the re-section 3 of the annexed crime list No. 3 constitutes the distribution of false facts; and even if otherwise, it is difficult to deem

After the judgment of the court below, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant's act of preparing and writing a notice as shown in the table Nos. 1 through 3 of the annexed crime list and publicly expressing false facts through information and communications networks, thereby obstructing the management of shares of C and D companies. It is insufficient to deem that there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, and thereby obstructing the business of this case, including interference with each of the entries in the annexed list Nos. 1 through 3 of the crime list.