정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
The judgment of the first instance is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal argues that: (a) the Defendant was aimed at avoiding his opinion on the double punishment system of rebates, which was a pending issue at the time, and there was no intent to defame the victim (hereinafter “claim”); (b) the content of the Defendant’s writing written is merely merely an opinion or judgment of the Defendant and does not constitute a statement of fact; (c) even if the Defendant’s statement of fact constitutes a statement of fact, the Defendant was aware that the exception provision of the double punishment system of rebates was significantly reduced by the victim; and (d) even if the Defendant did not have awareness that the alleged fact was false, the first instance judgment which found the Defendant guilty, which erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. On December 22, 2011, the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation) (1) Determination on the Violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (hereinafter “Act”)
) 제70조 제1, 2항에서 정한 ‘사람을 비방할 목적’이란 가해의 의사 내지 목적을 요하는 것으로, 사람을 비방할 목적이 있는지 여부는 당해 적시 사실의 내용과 성질, 당해 사실의 공표가 이루어진 상대방의 범위, 그 표현의 방법 등 그 표현 자체에 관한 제반 사정을 감안함과 동시에 그 표현에 의하여 훼손되거나 훼손될 수 있는 명예의 침해 정도 등을 비교ㆍ형량하여 판단되어야 한다(대법원 2011. 11. 24. 선고 2010도10864 판결 . 이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 제1심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하면, 피고인은 피해자 D이 트위터에 대한의사협회에서 자기를 찾아온 적이 없어 괘씸하게 생각하고 있다는 글을 올린 바 없고, D이 주도적으로 나서서...