정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The Defendant, as the president of the Management Group, was merely sent text messages to the sectional owners for the public interest, and did not have an intention to defame the victims or to impair the honor of the victims.
However, the lower court rendered a judgment of conviction against the Defendant by misunderstanding the facts.
2) The sentence of the lower court that was unfair in sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,00) is too unreasonable.
2. The Defendant also asserted the same as the lower court’s judgment regarding the assertion of mistake of facts.
The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the fact that the Defendant objectively confirmed is the entire fact that the Defendant was sentenced to the suspension of prosecution due to the submission to criminal conciliation on April 13, 2017 on the charge of embezzlement, etc. of the victim who accused the Defendant (the 12th page of the investigation record), ② the Defendant informed legal experts of the meaning of the suspension of prosecution and the procedures in the future, or sent the text message to the owners of officetelss who were indicted by the victim for embezzlement, etc. without properly confirming whether the Defendant was prosecuted against the victim, and considering the content of the text message itself, the Defendant’s purpose and the intent of defamation can be sufficiently recognized.
The judgment of the court below is justified.
3. The Defendant, as the president of the Management Group, filed a complaint with the investigation agency regarding the irregularities committed by the members of the Board of Representatives, including the victim, and led to the instant crime with the intent to inform the occupants of the result of the complaint.
However, the degree of defamation of the victim caused by the instant crime is not easy.
The defendant was unable to reach an agreement with the victim.
The lower court is favorable to the above Defendant’s aforementioned circumstances.