(영문) 부산지방법원 동부지원 2013.12.4. 선고 2013고정1170 판결

On November 28, 2012, the Defendant sold heavy and audio equipment to the complainant D, who became aware of via the Internet Csite, and the dispute occurred with the complainant on the grounds of the defect of the equipment, etc., and the complainant first posted an article that damages the reputation of the Defendant on the C website bulletin board, and the Defendant first filed a complaint against the complainant as defamation, and the summary order was issued as a violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Defamation) against the complainant, with the aim of slandering the complainant:

1. On February 20, 2013, at around 12:04, using the pen name "E" at the bottom of its sales text on the Internet Csite, DC is aware of the fact that "DC was found guilty of defamation by the Daegu District Law, and was punished by a fine. It is still known that DC continues to be her mother and her mother, and continues to be her mother, regardless of her anti-continence." By posting a letter "by the date of a chronic period," it damages D’s reputation by openly pointing out the fact publicly;

2. 2013. 2. 22. 00:21경 위 C 사이트에 고소인이 작성한 "뭐씨와의 블랙 코미디"라는 제목의 글 하단에 'E'이라는 필명을 이용하여 댓글 형식으로, "이제 법원 판결이 났습니다. D씨는 명예훼손 혐의로 유죄 판결로 벌금형에 처해졌으며, ……사기, 이놈저 놈, 개**, 씨놈 등 차마 입에 담기 어려운 쌍말로 대하고 마치 환불을 거부하는 것처럼 치부하여 사기꾼인양 하여 심대한 상처를 받았습니다. 굼뱅이도 밟아보시지요."라는 글을 게시함으로써, 공연히 사실을 적시하여 고소인의 명예를 훼손하고,

3. On February 22, 2013, around 01:27, the title “Intermediate Report on D's Cyber Violence of 12/12/13, 12/16, 12/18,” on the bulletin board of the above C site,” and “A person himself/herself filed a complaint against the above cyber terrorism, even though he/she was not against his/her own objection, against the above cyber terrorism, he/she was found guilty by the Daegu District Court, and thus, he/she was convicted of the fine, thereby impairing the reputation of the complainant by openly pointing out facts.”

2. Determination

(A) relevant legal principles

"Purpose of slandering a person" under Article 70 (1) and (2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. is to require an intention or purpose of deception. Whether a person is intended to defame a person should be determined by comparing and balancing the contents and nature of the relevant statement, the scope of the other party to whom the relevant fact was published, and the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by such expression, taking into account all the circumstances pertaining to the expression itself, such as the method of expression itself, and the method of expression. In addition, if the alleged facts are related to the public interest, the objective of slandering a person, barring any special circumstance, should be denied if the alleged facts are related to the public interest. Here, “an incidental fact” refers to the public interest when considering the objective of the alleged facts, and if such facts are related to the public interest, so, whether the offender is widely related to the public interest of the State, private society and other general public, and whether the victim is objectively aware of the motive or public interest of the entire society or not, and whether the public interest was objectively included in public interest or not.

B. Case history

(1) On November 30, 2012, the Defendant sold 1.6 million won high-stud audio (exploit 70AZ) to the complainants via C site (F). After that, there was a dispute over the defects and refund of heavy and audio products between the Defendant and the complainants.

(2) The complainant posted a notice on the bulletin board of the Internet Csite stating that he/she attacked the Defendant, and members of the club expressed their interest and carried out comments, and the Defendant accordingly posted the same article as the facts charged. In response, the complainant and the Defendant posted a notice on the bulletin board of the above club as mentioned in the attached Form.

(c)review;

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence examined by the court, namely, ① the site where the Defendant posted this case’s text is a club site consisting of persons with hobbies in the audio equipment via the “G club” bulletin board, ② the complainant posted an article that slanders the Defendant by considering the issue of the Defendant’s speech and behavior surrounding high audio trade in the G club bulletin board when a dispute arises due to the Defendant’s heavy and audio trade problems, ② the complainant posted an article that defames the Defendant; accordingly, the members of the club expressed their interest, expressed their comments, and the majority of the members present their opinions; ③ the Defendant was affiliated with the Justice of the Republic of Korea. In such a situation, the Defendant is able to raise the outcome. The Defendant’s main purpose of raising a summary to the effect that it was impossible to determine because monetary or emotional part was not objective, and thus, the Defendant’s accusation was not subject to the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Utilization, which is a violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. (hereinafter “Defendant’s Defamation”).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of criminal facts, and thus, a not-guilty verdict is rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and a summary of this judgment is publicly announced pursuant to Article