[1] In a case where only an Internet ID (ID) can be known, and where there is no evidence to identify who is a person with such ID, the victim’s false representation of such fact is established, whether the crime of defamation is established (negative)

[2] In a case where the Defendant posted false information on the victim B with A, a certain Internet camera (ID), on the bulletin board, and was prosecuted for violating the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation), the case holding that the victim’s defamation against A merely referring to comments made only in the name of A, but did not posted any information that could be known as A, in light of the fact that the victim was only written in the above camera, and did not know that A was a person Eul

[1] The legal interest protected by the crime of defamation and insult is different in terms of the so-called external reputation, which is a social evaluation of human value, and the person who is the subject of honor does not necessarily have to explicitly state a false fact, even if it is required to be a specific person, so the act of publicly alleging false facts without a person’s name is also deemed to constitute defamation of a specific person in a case where it is possible to find out which person is selected by considering the contents of the expression comprehensively and comprehensively with

However, even if only the victim’s Internet ID (ID) can be known, and considering other surrounding circumstances, in cases where it is difficult to find out who is a person with an Internet ID (ID) and there is no other evidence to detect it, the victim cannot be deemed to have been specified in the crime of defamation or insult, which is the benefit and protection of the external reputation. Thus, the crime of defamation against a specific person is not established.

[2] The case holding that in case where the defendant posted false information on the bulletin board of a specific Internet camera "A" on the part of "A" and was prosecuted for violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation), the case holding that in the case where the number of members of the above Carbook reaches 18,800 persons, and the number of members of the above carpet reaches 18,80 persons and is allowed to use a separate name other than the real name within the car page, the victim only made the name "A" and did not display any information that can be known that "A" is a person "B", while the victim filed a complaint against the defendant, the victim did not know only the ID (ID) of the defendant, and the defendant did not know about any substantive person "A", and it is difficult to view that the crime of defamation is established as a legal interest protected by the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (Defamation) as an external reputation against a specific person "A".

[1] Articles 307(2) and 311 of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 44-7(1)2 and 70(2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.; Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 200Da50213 Decided May 10, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1336), Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Do1226 Decided March 27, 2014, Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2007Hun-Ma461 Decided June 26, 2008 (Hun-Ga141, 946)

Defendant

Mail et al. and one other

A public-service advocate:

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of the facts charged

피고인은 2014. 1. 13. 03:01경 불상의 장소에서 ‘○○○’라는 닉네임으로 인터넷 네이버 카페 ‘△△△ △△△’(인터넷 주소 생략) 게시판에 접속하여 피해자 공소외인을 가리켜 “□□□님 또 괴롭히면 너 명예훼손 띠리한다~!!! 작업 좀 작작하고... ^.~ 두 살림 하는거 온 카페가 다 알던데 제발 들키지 말고....”라는 내용의 글을 게시하였다. 그러나 사실은 피해자는 두 살림을 하는 등의 사실이 없었다.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the records, the Defendant written his writing on the Internet bulletin board of “△△△△△△△△△△” with a ID called “○○○○○”, and the victim Nonindicted Party posted a statement that criticizes the Defendant’s writing on the part of “△△△△△△△△”, and the Defendant and the person holding △△△△” writing comments to the effect that he criticizes or criticizes the comments on △△△△△△△△△’s comments, and the Defendant’s writing on the facts charged are one of such comments. This paper argues that the Defendant’s statement on the facts in the facts charged is referring to △△△△△△△△△△△, rather than △△△△△△△△△, but the entire content of the above comments appears to be referring to ○○○○” and it appears to have been “the Defendant’s false statement on the facts that △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△.” In light of the legal principles and legal principles.

B. Furthermore, we examine whether the aforementioned false facts can constitute a crime of violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (Defamation) against a person who has a ID, ○○○○.

The legal interest of the crime of defamation and insult is different in terms of the so-called external reputation, which is a social evaluation of human value. The person who is the subject of honor does not necessarily have to explicitly indicate false facts, even though he is required to be a specific person. Thus, in a case where the expression of false facts without a person’s name can be identified by considering the contents of such expression comprehensively and comprehensively with the surrounding circumstances, it constitutes defamation against a specific person (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da50213, May 10, 2002).

However, in a case where only the victim’s Internet ID (ID) can be known, and in light of other surrounding circumstances, in a case where it is difficult to find out who is a person with an Internet ID (ID) and there is no other evidence to detect it, the victim cannot be deemed to have been specified in the crime of defamation or insult, which is protected by the law of the external reputation. Thus, the crime of defamation against a specific person is not established (see Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2007Hun-Ma461, Jun. 26, 2008).

C. In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the records are as follows: ① the number of members of the instant car page reaches 18,800, and the number of members of the instant car page is allowed to use a separate name other than the real name in the car page; ② the victim only puts his name in the car page and did not post any information that ○○○○ upon complaint by the Defendant that ○○○○ filed a complaint with the Defendant, and ③ the victim did not know about the specific information, and the Defendant appears to have known about what material material is, and ④ The main purpose of the instant car page is to promote friendship, and the victim appears to have attended a specific meeting of △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, which is neither the victim’s disclosure of that person’s name or the victim’s external defamation is difficult to be deemed to have been established in light of the legal interests protected by the law of the victim’s reputation against the outside public prosecution.

D. Furthermore, even if △△△△△ and some of its members having personal friendly relationship were aware of the fact that △△△△△△△ is a person other than the public prosecution, it shall be deemed that the specific offense of defamation refers to a situation in which a third party can be identified and recognizable by specifying that person is the person in question in an objective manner. The mere fact that a third party becomes aware of the identity by personal circumstances unrelated to the objective language cannot be deemed to have been specified, and even if certain members having a friendly relationship could be identified, in light of such friendly relationship, it is not possible for △△△ to spread the fact that △△△△ is a person who is a person other than the public prosecution, and thus, it shall not be deemed that public performance necessary for the establishment of defamation is not recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4407, Sept. 22, 2006).

E. Along with the increase in activities in the Internet space, the degree of confluence toward either IDs in the cyber space and the substantive persons behind it is narrow. However, the Criminal Act still has a lot of discussions on the external reputation of the substantive persons, and on the so-called so-called “malicious comments” using Internet IDs only, but under the current law, it appears to be in charge of autonomous regulation unless there are concerns over infringement on the freedom of expression and specifically specifying persons, as seen in the instant case, it cannot be deemed that the act of carrying the letters of slanders by using only the IDs on the Internet without a specific person as to the substantive persons constitutes a violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime, a not-guilty verdict under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act and a summary of the judgment of the defendant under Article 58(2) of the

Judges Cho Jae-young