정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.
The defendant does not pay the above fine.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding the following facts.
1) With respect to the portion reported by the Defendant that “D, the reporter of C, was registered as the person with access to E, visited the victim’s office, and the victim became D in the office,” the lower court deemed that D constituted defamation by publicly alleging false facts on the ground that D was not registered as the person with access to E, but it was highly probable that D was the person with access, and that the Defendant used the expression “registration”.
Even if the overall purport or essential part of the statement is consistent with objective facts, it cannot be deemed that the statement of false facts is made.
2) Even though the content reported by the Defendant on the Internet radio broadcasting of this case was not aimed at slandering because it was related to public interest, the lower court held that the Defendant’s broadcast was made with the intent of
In other words, the court has determined the person.
3) The Defendant changed the victim’s access reporter to the E prosecutorial office to the manufacturer.
Since there are reasonable grounds to believe that the reported part is consistent with objective facts or some errors, the defendant's act is excluded from illegality.
B. In light of the influence of the public prosecutor’s Internet radio broadcasting, the content of the Defendant’s speech and the Defendant’s mistake, and the fact that the Defendant did not recognize one’s own mistake, the sentence of the lower court (a penalty of KRW 3 million) is too uneased and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and examined by this court on the part of the Defendant’s assertion (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine) that “D is registered as the entry holder of D E”, and the evidence duly admitted and examined by this court, E issued the initial entry certificate to AS, and E trade union was engaged in a strike on April 2010.