beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In writing posted on Defendant NV “D” car page (hereinafter “instant Internet car page”), there was no purpose of slandering the victim E, and such an act cannot be deemed as a violation of social norms.
In addition, since the above article was posted for the public interest of smooth operation of the car page, the part concerning the victim L is dismissed in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Code.
The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.
B. The punishment of the prosecutor’s judgment (one million won in penalty) is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
A. “Purpose of slandering a person” under Article 70(1) of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Protection, etc. of Information and Communications Network (hereinafter “Act”) requires an intention or purpose of defamation. Whether a person is intended to defame a person ought to be determined by comparing and considering all the circumstances pertaining to the expression itself, including the content and nature of the relevant publicly alleged fact, the scope of the other party to whom the relevant fact was published, and the method of expression, etc., and the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the said expression (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do8214, Jul. 10, 2014). Whether a publicly alleged fact relates to public interest should be determined by considering the content and nature of the relevant publicly alleged fact, the scope of the other party to which the relevant fact was published, the method of expression, etc., and the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the said expression, as well as by considering the following circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do3294, Oct. 15, 2014).
① A notice was posted on the Internet car page of this case around March 9, 2014 by the Defendant.