[1] The meaning of "the purpose of slandering people" under Article 61 (1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.

[2] The method of determining whether the alleged facts are related to the public interest, and whether there is a proof that the public interest in principle is related to the case where the truth is published as to the matters closely related to the official activities of the official (official) (affirmative)

[3] The case holding that in a case where an online newspaper reporter prepares and reports an article containing abusive language such as abusive language to a viewing public official, it is difficult to recognize the purpose of slandering the above City Council member by stating the contents of the article as it is,

[1] Article 61(1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., Article 309(1) of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 61(1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., Article 309(1) of the Criminal Act / [3] Article 61(1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc.,

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2137 decided Apr. 29, 2005 (Gong2005Sang, 882)

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Dasan General Law Office, Attorneys Kim Li-soo et al.

Suwon District Court Decision 2004No5385 Decided April 28, 2005

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The purpose of slandering a person under Article 61(1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. is, like the purpose of slandering a person under Article 309(1) of the Criminal Act, the purpose of slandering a person under Article 309(1) is to be in conflict with one another in the direction of subjective intent of the actor for the public interest. Therefore, in a case where the publicly alleged fact concerns the public interest, it is reasonable to view that the objective of slandering a person under Article 61(1) is denied unless there are any special circumstances. Meanwhile, whether the publicly alleged fact concerns the public interest of the public or private person, whether the publicly alleged fact concerns the public interest of the public, the public interest of which the public should be objectively known to the public, whether the victim falls under pure private area or not, whether the victim first fell under the risk of defamation, the nature and degree of defamation damaged by such expression, and the method and motive of infringement, etc. of such expression, and if it is, in principle, reasonable to 200 motive or public interest in the public interest.

The facts charged of this case contain and reported an article that the accused, a reporter of the online newspaper (title omitted), made abusive language such as abusive language to viewing public officials with a view to slandering the accused, and the accused was guilty by applying Article 61(1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.

However, the lower court that determined that the Defendant’s purpose of slandering is recognized is unacceptable as it is.

According to the records, the complainant was assessed as a person with significant influence as the market office of the same City Council member, which belongs to the Sungnam City (name omitted). The complainant was opposed to the amendment of the Ordinance of the Welfare Center, which was under deliberation by the Social Welfare Committee, but the amendment of the Ordinance was passed immediately after the explanation of the amendment of the Ordinance, which was made by the head of the Sungnam-si Women's Welfare Center, and the complainant was not able to explain the amendment of the Ordinance due to the head of the culture and welfare bureau, and it was inappropriate for the speaker to explain the amendment of the Ordinance, if the viewer was not able to explain it to the Director of the Women's Welfare Bureau due to the head of the culture and welfare bureau, and the online newspaper (name omitted), the defendant, who was an online newspaper (name omitted), was informed from the witness of the above physical site and confirmed the fact to the Director of the Women's Welfare Department by telephone, and it was not appropriate for the defendant to know that he was not able to know the above public official's desire to perform the act of expression and expression in the City Council member."

According to this, the article prepared by the defendant is closely related to the public official's public activities because the complainant, who is a City Council member, made verbal abuse, such as abusive language, on the grounds that it is inappropriate to explain the director of the women's welfare division, who is a viewing public official, in relation to the deliberation of the amendment bill of the City Council Ordinance, on the grounds that it is inappropriate for the complainant, who is a City Council member, to explain the contents of the article to the public official's public activities, and it was caused by verbal abuse, such as abusive language, by the complainant to the viewing public official at the public place, and thus, it can be deemed that the complainant himself caused the risk of defamation. In addition, the contents of the article also indicate facts, and there is no other motive to defame the complainant, such as the defendant's personal appraisal, etc.

원심은 피고인에게 비방할 목적이 인정되는 이유로 기사 중 일부 표현이 감정적이고 원색적이라고 지적하고 있으나, 피고인이 고소인의 폭언 중 일부를 그대로 인용하는 형식을 취한 것은 기사의 정확성을 기하기 위한 것으로 보이므로 이를 문제 삼는 것은 적절하지 않은 것으로 보이고(피고인은 고소인의 욕설 부분은 그대로 옮겨 싣지 않고 “야, 이 XXX야”라는 표현으로 순화시키기도 하였다), 고소인의 언행이 부적절하였음을 지적한 부분에서 언급된 “분을 삭이지 못했다”, “괘씸죄에 해당”, “감정을 추스르지 못한” 등의 표현 역시 기사의 주요한 동기 내지 목적이 고소인의 욕설 등 부적절한 언행을 지적·비판함으로써 시의회의원들로 하여금 공직자로서 적절하지 못한 언행을 시정토록 하기 위한 데 있었다는 점을 고려하면 위와 같은 수준의 표현을 문제 삼아 공공의 이익을 도모한다는 의사를 부정하고 피고인에게 고소인을 비방할 목적이 있었다고 판단하는 것은 공직자의 공적 활동과 관련된 언행에 대한 언론의 감시·비판 기능을 지나치게 위축시키는 것으로 적절하지 않다.

After all, the court below held that the defendant's purpose of slandering the complainant is recognized, and it cannot be maintained as it is due to the misapprehension of legal principles or errors in the rules of evidence.

2. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)