2014No2495 Defamation

A

Defendant

Category IV (Court Prosecution) and Kim Sung-won (Court Trial)

Law Firm B, Attorney in charge

Suwon District Court Decision 2014 High Court Decision 988 decided October 16, 2014

May 22, 2015

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

Although the Defendant used partially insulting expressions in the process of criticizeing the prejudice of a victim against foreign workers, such expressions can be seen as acts that do not violate social norms, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, contrary to the misapprehension of legal principles or erroneous determination of facts.

2. Determination

A. Summary of the facts charged

Victim D is the chairperson of the group of members opposing the establishment of F in Soyang-gu E, Yangyang-gu, and the defendant (E) is the member of the group of members consenting to the establishment of each above F.

On January 12, 2013, the defendant, at the first office that the defendant works as the representative of Goyang-dong-gu H on March 12, 2013, published under the title "The Internet NAV Kaf-J", "if the plaintiff is active for foreigners, sexual assault incidents will occur?" It is difficult for the defendant to say that there is no 'D' person'.The above 'D' person's 'D'....The defendant openly insultingd the victim by openly inserting comments stating 'Y'.

B. The judgment of the court below

The lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged on the ground that, on the basis of the legal doctrine that illegality may be avoided in a case where a part of insulting expressions are used in the process of emphasizing the validity of one’s own judgment and opinion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do9411, Feb. 28, 2008), the Defendant’s opinion on the inducement distributed by the victim cannot be deemed to have been used in part in the process of emphasizing the legitimacy of the victim’s opinion and emphasizing that the opinion is reasonable, and thus, it violates the

C. Judgment of the court below

In light of the motive, circumstance, and background behind the posting of the writing, the overall purport of the writing, specific method of expression, logical and objective validity of the premised on facts objectively reasonable, and the overall relation between the contents of the text, in a case where a certain writing contains insulting expressions, if it is merely a use of partially insulting expressions in the course of emphasizing that the relevant facts or issues surrounding it and the attitude the victim took place are reasonable, then the illegality may be determined pursuant to Article 20 of the Criminal Act as acts contrary to social norms, barring any special circumstances. However, in a case where an insulting expression is partially mixed with an insulting expression in the text or speech, such determination may not be made in light of the overall purport of the text, and the overall purport of the text may not be applied to cases where an insulting expression is contained in the Internet camera (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 208Do20858, Feb. 28, 2008).

On the other hand, even in cases where any writing contains especially insulting expressions, if such expressions can be seen as acts that do not violate the social norms in light of the sound social norms of the times, illegality is exceptionally excluded under Article 20 of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1453, Dec. 23, 2005). The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., (i) the only human being, at the end of D doctoral degree, posted by the defendant, i.e., the word “D doctoral degree,” and there is no thought.It is difficult to see that the victim’s opinion that “I must have no brain, ...........” expressed abstract judgment or saficial sentiment which could undermine the social evaluation of the victim, and thus, it is difficult to see that the defendant criticizes and criticizes the victim’s acts with the intent of posting such comments to foreign workers, as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, although there are some inappropriate parts in the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, it is justified that the court below found the defendant guilty, and there is no error of law as alleged by the defendant. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge shall be appointed from among judges.

Judges Kim Gin-ju

Judge Lee Young-young