피고인은 피해자 E(51 세) 을 비방할 목적으로, 2014. 12. 10. 00:29 경 자신의 거주지 인 성남시 분당구 F에서 컴퓨터를 이용하여 증권 포털사이트인 B에 있는 G 토론 실에 피해자 (B 아이디 'H', 온라인 필명 : I)를 지명하며 " 유 명한 사 깃꾼, 협잡꾼

f. Along with the false fact that “a measure is to measure the settlement of agreement by threatening B members to face at the time of complaint,” the victim’s reputation was damaged by an information and communications network over six occasions, such as the list of crimes committed in attached Form 1.

2. Determination

A. In order to establish the crime of defamation, since a person’s name is not necessarily required to be explicitly indicated, the act of expressing false facts that did not indicate a person’s name is also an act of expressing false facts, and in a case where it is possible to find out which person is designated as a specific person by considering the contents of the expression in light of the surrounding circumstances, the crime of defamation on the specific person constitutes the crime of defamation of reputation (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1226, Mar. 27, 2014). However, in a case where only the victim’s Internet ID can be identified, and in light of other surrounding circumstances, it is difficult for a person with such Internet ID to identify whose identity is, and there is no other evidence to see it, the victim was identified as the crime of defamation or insult that protects external reputation.

As such, the crime of defamation against a specific person is not established (see Constitutional Court Decision 2007Hun-Ma461, Jun. 26, 2008). B. According to the records, the defendant, like the above facts charged, posted a notice on an internal medicine containing a negative evaluation as to "I", should be acknowledged.

However, the following circumstances, i.e., ①.