A. The Defendant was fully aware that the content of the article posted in the instant facts charged (hereinafter “instant article”) is false.

The court below judged that it is difficult to recognize that the defendant actively recognized the content of the article in this case as false, and sentenced not guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The content of the instant notice that constitutes a violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Defamation) may be deemed to have undermined the social evaluation of the victim.

The court below judged that it is difficult to recognize that the defendant made a statement of defamation against the victim, and sentenced the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. 1) In the crime of interference with business, which is constituted by spreading false information by a method of spreading false information, the distribution of false information refers to the dissemination of information different from actual objective facts to many and unspecified persons. In particular, in such a case, it is required that the Defendant actively recognized that the Defendant’s distribution was false at the time of the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do6728, Nov. 27, 2008; 93Do1278, Jan. 28, 1994). In light of the content of the message sent to E immediately after the Defendant received the instant message from E (hereinafter “instant message”), the circumstances before and after the posting of the instant message, the purpose of the posting of this case, etc., the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is that the posting of this case is false.