정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although it is true that the defendant engaged in the same act as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, such expressions alone cannot be deemed to have damaged the reputation of the victim.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on defamation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) In order to establish a crime of defamation as to the assertion of legal principles, the act of publicly alleging false facts without a person’s name is not necessarily required to state a false fact with a person’s name. Therefore, in a case where it is possible to find out which person is identified by considering the contents of the expression in light of the surrounding circumstances, the crime of defamation against the specific person constitutes the crime of defamation.
In addition, in order to establish defamation, a specific fact that is likely to infringe on the victim's social value or evaluation should be indicated. Whether an expression is defamation should be determined by objective evaluation in accordance with the social norms of the expression.
(B) The public performance, which is the constituent element of the crime of defamation, refers to the state in which an unspecified person or a large number of people can be recognized. Thus, even if a fact was distributed to an individual, if it is possible to spread it to an unspecified person, the requirement of performance is satisfied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Do2380, Dec. 10, 1985). 2) The lower court determined as follows: (a) as to the same assertion as the Defendant’s grounds for appeal, eight (8) students of the Ro High School, the motive of the Defendant and the victim, were well aware of the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, and the fact that the Defendant and the victim had existed.