In a case where Defendants, an executive officer or employee of Gap corporation operating the Internet community portal site, were indicted on charges of violating the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. on the ground that they transferred false descriptions posted on the Internet by a third party to the effect that " Eul corporation, an electronic commerce shopping mall company," "the delivery workers," and prepared and posted on other Internet website bulletin boards, thereby impairing Eul corporation's reputation, the case affirming the Defendants on the ground that they had dolusent intent to indicate false facts at least to the Defendants, and that there was a purpose to defame Eul corporation, the case affirmed the Defendants on the ground that they were with intent to defame Eul corporation

In a case where Defendants were indicted for violating the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. on the ground that Defendants, an executive officer or employee of Gap corporation operating the Internet community portal site, “E-Commerce shopping company Eul corporation,” obtained false comments posted on the Internet by a third party to the effect that they are “lickly moral companies taking the delivery workers,” and made and posted on other Internet website bulletin boards, the case holding that Defendants were guilty of the Defendants’ act of directly expressing the original contents of the original contents beyond citing or introducing the original contents of the posting, and even if they did not know the fact that there were no false announcements on the Internet, and that Defendants did not make any false announcements on the grounds that they did not intend to publish the original contents of the publication, or did not make any false statements on the grounds that they did not know the fact that there were any false announcements on the Internet in the business of Gap corporation, one executive officer or employee of the domestic community website, but did not make any false announcements on the original contents of the publication, and that they did not make any false statements on the original contents of the press report.

Article 13 of the Criminal Act, Article 70(2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.

Defendant 1 and one other

1. The term "foreign financial resources"

Law Firm Han-jin, Attorneys Lessee-won et al.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by a fine of three million won and by a fine of two million won, respectively.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fines, the Defendants shall be confined in the Labor House for the period of 10,000 won converted into one day.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines.

1. Basic facts

Defendant 1 is the vice president of “Nonindicted Co., Ltd. 1” (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 1”) and Defendant 2 is the head of the strategic business team team team of the said Nonindicted Co. 1, and the victim ○○ Co., Ltd. is an electronic commerce shopping mall.

2. Defendant 1

피고인은 2015. 1. 12. 15:38경 서울 강남구 (주소 생략) 공소외 1 회사 사무실에서, 컴퓨터를 이용하여 인터넷 ‘△△△ △△’ 사이트(인터넷주소 생략) 러브스토리 게시판에 『소셜커머스 총체적 난국이네요』라는 제목으로 “○x 관련 퍼온 글인데 한두 업체의 문제가 아닌가보네요.. 작년말까지 일하고 문자 한통으로 해고 당했군요 나참 어이가 없는.. 처음에 일하게 된 게기는 열심히 하면 정규직도 가능하다는 말이 있었고 나름 이름되는 회사에서 일해보고 싶다는 생각이 들었거든요. 근데 ㅅㅂ 아침 8시에 출근해서 퇴근을 하려면 기본으로 밤 11시가 넘음 처음에는 8시퇴근이라고 되어 있었는데 열심히 해야 정규직이 된다는 생각하여 한마디도 불평을 이야기 못했음 점심시간도 빵으로 때워가며 일했고 하루가 정말 고되고 힘들었음 6개월 뒤에 부푼 기대를 갖고 있었으나 저는 해고처리.. 내가 잘못한게 있었나? 사고 한번도 안 났고 배송 밀린 것도 없었는데.. 없었던게 아니라 없게 할려고 밤을 지셌는데 처음에는 저보다 일을 잘 한사람이 좀 더 많았겠지라고 생각했는데 알고보니 합격한 사람은 아무도 없습니다. 그냥 계약종료로 전부 퇴사처리되었네요ㅜㅜ 그것도 문자1통받고 뭐라고 말도 못했습니다. 차량반납하고 끝.. 이런게 갑질이구나 난 당했구나.”라는 내용의 글을 작성하여 이를 게시하였다.

However, in fact, the victim is undergoing the procedure of termination of the contract through the interview with the person in question, not written notice, and the contract with the existing worker has been extended or changed to regular workers, except in extenuating circumstances after the contract period for six months expires.

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim by divulging public false information through the information and communication network for the purpose of slandering the victim.

3. Defendant 2

On January 12, 2015, at the office of the above non-indicted 1 company around 16:08, the Defendant: (a) using the Defendant’s mobile phone to “△△△△△△△△△”, and (b) as the title “We need to look at the ○○○○ Man”, the husband, who was the ○○○○○ ○○○, to do so; (c) the customer satisfaction; (d) the comments are written; and (e) whether the company will enter the company with less treatment and benefits than the ordinary choice? The monthly rate of KRW 2.5 million will be delivered to the above office of the non-indicted 1 company; and (e) how the company will write it up at least 8 hours without complying with it? It is difficult to start up to the 10th day after the signing of the contract? It is difficult to start up to the 10th day after the signing of the contract? It is difficult to start up to the 10th day after the signing of the contract? It is difficult to start up to the 18th day.

However, the victim paid the benefits (other allowances) including a low-supper, night allowance, weekend allowance, etc., and the conversion rate of regular workers was not zero percent.

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim by divulging public false information through the information and communication network for the purpose of slandering the victim.

1. The Defendants’ partial statements in the first trial record

1. Prosecutorial suspect interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Five copies of a labor contract, and three copies of a regular salary statement in December 2014, including each closure photograph, ○○○ Man contract extension procedure, ○○ Man admission and withdrawal;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Defendants: Article 70(2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.; Selection of fines

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant 2: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendants: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendants: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the assertion

A. The Defendants merely simply transferred a third party’s writing posted on the Internet portal site, and such act does not constitute defamation against the victim.

B. There is no person who passed the notice of the dismissal under Paragraph (1) of this Article, which is the issue of Defendant 1’s writing, (2) of the “Wedman who was dismissed in one word.” The part of the “Isn't prove that it was false due to the termination of the contract.”

C. Of the questions in the writing written by Defendant 2, the following is: (i) “Treatment and Benefit without general choice”; (ii) “delivery by the time of heat,” (iii) “monthly class 2.5 million won”; and (iv) “no more time is available for high-speed food,” and (v) “one is not properly observed; (vi) 11/300 or 12/3000; and (vi) whether he is said to go back at 11/300 or 12/00; and (iii) for whom he is for whom he is the contractual position? 6/100”; (vii) “all-time conversion rate” portion; and (vii) it is not a subjective judgment of Defendant 2, not a fact-finding; and (ii) it is not proven that (vii) or (7) is false.

D. Since the Defendants believe that the contents of the previous text were true, and there are reasonable grounds to believe that they are true, the Defendants’ act is dismissed by Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

2. Determination

A. As to the argument in Paragraph 1-A

If the act of posting a third party’s expressive material on the Internet is merely citing or introducing the said expressive material by viewing it as a whole, the liability of defamation is denied. In a case where it is deemed that the act of posting a third party’s expressive material is different from that of directly expressing the same content as that of the third party by practically using and controlling the third party’s expressive material, the liability of defamation is recognized (see Constitutional Court en banc Order 2009Hun-Ma747, Dec. 26, 201

In other words, the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence of each judgment, i.e.,: (a) the Defendants written each text without accurately disclosing the source of the original text, and (b) the Defendants written the original text in the form of a new bulletin rather than posting or introducing the Internet address on the original text; (c) even if the Defendants’ act is nothing more than the fact that the original text was transferred to the Defendants, the Defendants’ act is nothing more than that of directly expressing each text of the judgment, which goes beyond citing or introducing the original text. Therefore, the Defendants’ liability for defamation against the victims cannot be denied.

B. As to the assertion in Article 1-2(b)

In other words, the following circumstances that can be recognized as evidence of each judgment, i.e., (i) the victim determined whether to renew the contract after an interview with the probationary employee according to the procedure, and did not dismiss the employee during the probationary period without any reason attributable to the defendant 1; and (ii) the content of the article written by the defendant 1 is false; (iii) according to the current status of 00 Man Man Man Man Man Man Man Man, 200, the expiry rate of the contract for the number of the employees as of December 1, 2014 is 6.8%; and (iv) the termination rate of the contract is 13.1% (no fact that the probationary employee has been treated as the whole termination of the contract) even based on the number of the probationary employees as of December 1, 2014; and (ii) the content of the article written by the defendant 1 is false.

C. As to the argument in Article 1-3(c)

In other words, the following circumstances can be acknowledged by each evidence: (i) the content of (i) is that the victim’s employee’s treatment and treatment, the fact that the amount of benefits is lower than that of the general home company is difficult to be considered as simple value judgment; and (ii) the content of the notice is that the victim’s employees are receiving only basic wages without being paid a full-time comparison even if they worked at the latest at the night; (ii) the victim’s employees have paid not only overtime work allowances, night work allowances, holiday work allowances, but also a full-time meeting; (iii) the content of items (i) through (vi) is false; and (vi) the victim has paid not only overtime work allowances, night work allowances, holiday work allowances, but also a full-time meeting, taking into account the fact that the content of the notice is false, the content of each letter written by the defendant 2 may also be recognized as false.

D. As to the assertion of Paragraph 1-D

In determining whether the facts alleged in the crime of defamation by a statement of false facts under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act are false, if the facts alleged in the crime of defamation include not only a certain difference from the truth or a certain exaggerated expression in light of the overall purport of the alleged facts, it shall not be deemed as false. However, if the material part is not consistent with the objective facts, it shall be deemed as false. Furthermore, it is difficult to know or prove such fact outside the country due to its nature. Furthermore, the determination should be made by taking full account of various objective circumstances, such as the Defendant’s educational background, career, social status, time of publication, and anticipated ripple effect, based on the contents of the publicly announced fact, the existence and content of the material fact, the source and awareness of the fact, and the circumstances leading up to the fact revealed by the Defendant. Since the intent of the crime includes not only the conclusive intention but also the so-called willful intention, which is the intention to accept it, the crime of defamation by a statement of false facts also constitutes incomplete intentional intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1304).

In addition, the phrase “purpose of slandering a person” under Article 70(2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. means requiring an intention or purpose of a harm. The issue of whether a person is intended to defame a person ought to be determined by comparing and considering the following: (a) the content and nature of the relevant publicly alleged fact; (b) the scope of the other party to whom the relevant fact was published; and (c) the degree of infringement of honor that may be damaged or damaged by the expression (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do648, Aug. 25, 2006).

Based on the above legal principles, it is reasonable to see that the Defendants: (a) as an executive officer and employee of Nonindicted Company 1, the executive officer and employee of Nonindicted Company 1, the largest of the domestic community website, were fully aware of the fact that there was a lot of false notices on the job Internet; (b) the Defendants prepared each text without additional confirmation of facts; (c) there was no specific suspicion about the victims; (b) there was no official press report on the contents of the text posted by the Defendants after the lapse of 2 to 3 days from the date of the Defendants’ act; (c) there was no official press report on the contents of the text posted by the Defendants (only some of the Internet articles of the form of introducing the truth of the contents posted by the Defendants to the Defendants after the lapse of 2 to 3 days from the date of the Defendants’ act; and (d) the contents of each article written by the Defendants’ act were unilaterally sold to the Defendants, which is a non- moral company taking advantage of their employees; and (v) each of these published website’s unlawful contents against each Internet victim.

As such, Article 310 of the Criminal Act cannot be applied to defamation of false facts through an information and communications network where the purpose of slandering the Defendants is recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14037, Feb. 28, 2013, etc.).

E. Conclusion

Therefore, the above argument by the Defendants and the defense counsel is difficult to accept.

Considering the fact that the victim’s social assessment appears to have been considerably damaged due to the Defendants’ criminal conduct, the victim’s punishment is actively required, and other various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the pleadings, such as the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, and environment, each of the fines prescribed in the summary order of this case cannot be deemed unfair. Accordingly, the sentence against the Defendants shall be determined as ordered.

Judges Park Jin-han