[2] The meaning of "purposes of Slandering people" under Article 61 (2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. or Article 309 (2) of the Criminal Act and the method of determining such "purposes of

[3] The case holding that the contents of a notice posted on the website or a printed article of a citizen group opposing a specific daily newspaper do not merely constitute a simple opinion or comment, but also constitutes a statement of specific facts, and the purpose of slandering the above daily newspaper is recognized

[4] Whether Article 310 of the Criminal Act concerning the denial of illegality in defamation or defamation through an information and communications network can be applied (negative)

[5] The meaning of "the purpose of slandering people" under Article 309 (1) of the Criminal Code

[6] The case holding that it is difficult to view that there was a purpose of slandering the members of the above citizen group, in case where the reporters belonging to the above daily newspaper posted articles in order to inform readers of the situation of the organization and activities of the above citizen group against a non-discriminatory attack of the citizen group opposing a specific daily newspaper

1. Determination on the grounds of appeal by Defendant 2 (hereinafter “Defendant”)

A. In a case where a certain expressive act becomes a problem with respect to defamation, whether the expression is a statement of fact or simply expresses an opinion or comment, or if an expression of opinion or comment is made at the same time, whether or not the expression explicitly indicates a fact which is a premise of the premise should be determined on the basis of the objective contents of the relevant expression, as well as the ordinary meaning of words used in the expression, the overall flow of the expression, and the method of linking the words, etc. under the premise that the ordinary readers are in contact with the expression with the ordinary readers at the same time. Furthermore, it should also be determined on the basis of the ordinary meaning of words used in the expression, the overall flow of the expression, and the social flow, etc., which form a background, should also be considered (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Do2188, Feb. 25, 200; 2003Do1868, Jun. 24, 2003).

In addition, Article 61(2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. or Article 309(2) of the Criminal Act “purposes to defame a person” requires the intention or purpose of a hazard. The issue of whether a person has an intention to defame a person ought to be determined by comparing and considering the overall circumstances concerning the expression itself, such as the content and nature of the relevant publicly alleged fact, the scope of the other party to whom the relevant fact was published, and the method of expression, etc., and the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do6036, Dec. 26, 2003; 2005Do5068, Oct. 14, 2005).

The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning based on its adopted evidence, and found the defendant guilty of all the criminal facts of defamation through the information and communications network against the defendant on the ground that the contents of notices posted on the website of the citizen group creating a scenic world that does not view as early, (here.g., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h.,

In addition, Article 310 of the Criminal Act cannot be applied to defamation or false facts through information and communications network (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do601, 2003Do9, May 16, 2003; Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8484, Feb. 17, 2005). In light of the records, it is difficult to view that the defendant believed the above contents of the postings to be true or there is a justifiable reason to believe such contents.

The ground of appeal pointing out this error is without merit.

B. Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the records, the court below is justified in finding the defendant guilty of the crime of obstruction of business, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles concerning legitimate acts, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the defendant 1 and 3

Defendant 1 and 3 did not submit a statement of grounds for appeal within the statutory period, and the petition of appeal does not contain any information in the grounds for appeal.

3. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor

A. Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the records, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted Defendant Kim Hong-jin (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant” in this paragraph), which is the primary charge of the publication, on the ground that it is difficult to view the contents of the article of this case as a false or implied expression of facts, on the ground that it is difficult to view them as the contents of the article of this case as the expression of facts, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence

B. "Purpose of slandering a person" under Article 309 (1) of the Criminal Code is required for the intention or purpose of a hazard, and it is in conflict with one another in the direction of subjective intention of an actor as well as for the public interest. Therefore, in a case where a timely statement concerns the public interest, unless there are any special circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the objective of slandering a person is denied. It is widely related to the public interest, and includes not only to the interests of the State, society, and other general public, but also to the interests and interests of a specific social group or a group of its members. If the principal motive or purpose of an actor is for the public interest, it is difficult to view that there is a purpose of slandering a person, even if another private interest purpose or motive is spread incidentally (see Supreme Court Decisions 97Do158, Oct. 9, 1998; 2003Do6036, Dec. 26, 2003; 203Da52142, Mar. 23, 2006).

The court below acknowledged the facts in its reasoning based on its employment evidence, and judged that the defendant pointed out the illegality of the early childhood's activities, which deviates from the limit of the sound press criticism by informing the readers of the situation of early childhood's emotional and activities against the non-discriminatory attack, and carried the article in this case in order to prevent the crypian reader's crypance, and the contents of the article are consistent with objective facts and the method of expression is relatively cut off. In light of the above legal principles and records, it is difficult to view that there was a purpose to defame the early childhood's members. In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the purpose of defamation in the crime of defamation, as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)