beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant: (b) made the victim’s name and address without permission; (c) made the victim’s name and address without permission; and (d) made the victim’s pictures without permission; and (c) continued to communicate with several men as if he were the victim; (d) made the Defendant contact with the victim with the sponsor who would pay KRW 1,500,000 per month in return for sexual intercourse; (b) taking into account the meaning of the clinic used by the Defendant and the conversation between the male and the other male who requested the printing, the Defendant had the victim appear to have had the victim paid money on the condition of sexual intercourse; and (c) obstructed the social assessment of the victim.
Since it is reasonable to see that the lower court rendered not guilty of the facts charged of this case, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and adversely affecting the judgment.
2. Article 70(2) of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (hereinafter “Information and Communications Network Act”) provides for “a person who defames another person by disclosing any false fact openly through an information and communications network with intent to defame a person shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than seven years, suspension of qualifications for not more than ten years, or a fine not exceeding 50 million won.”
“......”
The term "influence of facts" here refers to a report or statement on specific past or current facts in time and space.
Therefore, in order to apply the above provision to the act of putting a notice on the Internet website for the purpose of slandering any person, the notice must be a content that reports or states specific facts about that person.
The mere misrepresentation of the person does not constitute an act of expressing the fact to the person, and thus, it is against the person.