정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
The judgment of the court below (including the part of acquittal in the reason) shall be reversed.
Defendants are innocent.
The lower court found the Defendants not guilty of the part of the facts charged pertaining to defamation caused by a false statement of false facts in the reasoning of the judgment, and found the Defendants guilty of the part of defamation caused by a factual fact, on the grounds that the part of the article (hereinafter referred to as “instant article”) written and posted on the E University F Department website (hereinafter referred to as the “instant free bulletin board”) is consistent with objective facts, and it is difficult to view it as false facts. In so doing, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of the part regarding defamation caused by a false statement of false facts among the facts charged in the instant case.
With regard to this, only the Defendants appealed against the conviction portion, and the prosecutor did not appeal.
The scope of the judgment of this court shall be limited to the conviction of the judgment of the court below, and the remaining portion of the acquittal of the reasons shall be exempted from the object of public defense among the parties even if they were judged in the trial. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed.
The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the portion of the crime) is that the Defendants did not express the real name of the victim I (hereinafter “I”) or express the subject of criticism in this article while preparing the instant text, and thus, I cannot be deemed to have been identified through the instant text.
The Defendants only prepared and posted an article that points out the inappropriate actions of the study support site students, who were led by the study schedule at the time for the purpose of normalizing the E University FF course and school affairs schedule, and did not aim to slander I.
Judgment
On September 24, 2012, Defendant A, at around 09:12, at the place of residence of the Defendant, who had a DNA apartment 101 Dong 501, provided services to the President of the E University on the bulletin board of freedom of speech.