정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The notice of this case prepared by the defendant of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles did not contain a statement of fact, and the defendant prepared the notice of this case for the public interest without the purpose of slandering the victim, but the judgment below which found the guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or in the misapprehension of legal principles which affected
B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (5 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Article 70 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, “the purpose of slandering a person” shall be determined by comparing and considering the following: (a) the content and nature of the relevant statement; (b) the scope of the other party to whom the publication of the relevant fact was made; and (c) the method of expression itself; and (d) the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged
(See Supreme Court Decision 200Do329 Decided August 23, 2002, and Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1538 Decided June 1, 2007). In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the health team, the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, the statement of this case indicates that the victim prepared a false article under the direction of the upper court, such as DNke and president, and the fact that the statement of this case appears to be sufficiently likely to mislead the victim of this case from the perspective of ordinary people (which is actually misleading). ③ The defendant contributed to the formation of public opinion or public debate by raising a question of news reports behavior at the time of the media through the posting of this case.
(9).