logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.12.21 2017노2469
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Taking into account the following circumstances, the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles) is as follows: (a) the Defendant’s preparing and posting a notice on the Internet set (hereinafter “instant notice”) written in the facts charged is for the public interest to prevent crimes; and (b) there is no purpose to slander the Defendant; and (c) there is no violation of the rules of evidence and misunderstanding of facts.

The injured party has forged the agreement on the acquisition of the shares of H H's stock in which G was operated to acquire the company unlawfully and embezzled the company's public funds jointly with his female.

The defendant tried to find out the misconduct of the victim, and the victim tried to murder the defendant's office, but the prosecution made a non-prosecution disposition against the victim.

The defendant expressed his knowledge about the disposition of the prosecutor's office and criticizes the victim's act of murder. The defendant posted a notice of this case.

“Purpose of slandering a person” as prescribed by Article 70(1) and (2) of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. of Information and Communications Network Act concerning the grounds for appeal is required to be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression, taking into account the overall circumstances, such as the content and nature of the relevant statement, the scope of the other party to whom the relevant fact was published, and the method of expression, etc.

In addition, since the purpose of slandering is contrary to the direction of the actor's subjective intention, it is reasonable to deem that the objective of slandering is denied unless there are special circumstances, in a case where the alleged fact concerns the public interest. Here, the expression "in a case where the timely fact concerns the public interest" is objectively related to the public interest when viewed from an objective point of view.

arrow