정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (the fact-finding) did not mention at all the part of the report that “the defendant prepared and published the Internet article (hereinafter “the article of this case”) as indicated in the facts charged of this case using the word “the suspicions” or “suspects” instead of using the expression “the novels” or “the novels” as indicated in the facts charged of this case. The defendant, citing the N press article on March 1, 1999 in relation to the acceptance of bribe by the complainant, citing the N press article on March 1, 199, under which the article of this case was reported that “the party is highly likely to intentionally manipulate for the harm of E,” and that “the party is likely to intentionally manipulate for the harm of E,” the article of this case added the specific content that “the prosecutor who received money from the construction company and who enters the prosecution investigation” without the aforementioned N press article, can be acknowledged that the article of this case constitutes a false fact that there was acceptance of bribe against the complainants in this case beyond stating that there was a suspicion of bribery against the past.
In addition, in light of the fact that the Defendant did not undergo any particular verification procedure with regard to the suspicion of acceptance of bribe against the complainants, as well as the statement made by others, and the purport of the report on the contents of the above NE press articles is interpreted to the effect that “the possibility of being fabricated to mislead the complainants to injure the complainants,” etc., it may be deemed that the Defendant prepared and posted the instant article for the purpose of slandering the complainant, even though the Defendant had dolusent awareness that the alleged facts were false or distorted in the instant article, even though the Defendant knew that they were false
Nevertheless, the fact that the defendant stated in the article of this case was false or recognized by the defendant.
On the ground that it is difficult to recognize that there was a purpose of slandering the defendant, the defendant was acquitted of the facts charged in this case.