정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
The request for adjudication on the constitutionality of the instant case is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles did not aim to slander the victim, and the article posted by the defendant is true or true, and thus, it is justified as it concerns public interest.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to “the purpose of slandering people”
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The defendant argued the same purport in the court below's argument of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, and the court below rejected the above argument by making a detailed statement of the judgment. If the court below and the court below found the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, it is difficult to see that the writing posted by the defendant is true or true, or that there is a reasonable reason to believe that the defendant is true or that there is a good reason to believe such fact, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
The Defendant stated in an investigative agency that the content of the notice that the victim argued to be false was from the newspaper articles at the time, and was informed to the R of the unknown body, and that the professor, who was made a direct fraud, was accused of the fraud along with the telephone, and that the Defendant took up the writing after hearing and writing.
(No. 190 of the Evidence Records). The Defendant, at the court of the court of the court of the court below, appears to be “I am Sicker, the Defendant started to write his writing on a witness (victim) before the article was put to her, and begins to write his writing.”